Recently, I saw a share from zon @ItsAlwaysZon, the co-founder of Initia, and I found it particularly insightful. He said that when it comes to perpetual contracts, it's best not to just run on someone else's chain, but to have your own "home." The reason is simple. First, let's talk about user experience. Users won't go looking for a chain; they only care about what the application itself can bring. A smooth experience and practical functions are the hard metrics. Whether it's perpetual contracts, DEX, or payment tools, the logic is the same. Next is value. If an application relies on someone else's chain, every gas fee and every sorting could be siphoned off, ultimately benefiting nodes and chains that have nothing to do with you. Having your own chain allows you to firmly grasp the rules and value in your hands. History has repeatedly proven that top applications, after reaching a certain stage, will go back and build their own foundation. Hyperliquid is not satisfied with just being a DEX; it goes directly on-chain; Binance created BNB Chain after establishing its exchange; Coinbase launched Base. First, let the application run, then bring the infrastructure into the fold, allowing the experience and economic model to operate together. Finally, there's the issue of sovereignty. It's not about fragmenting into specialized chains, but about optimizing use cases. Perpetual contracts have high-frequency trading needs, while payments do not require the same restrictions. Only by controlling the chain can applications run on the most suitable track. So zon's conclusion is: applications first, chains second. If you want to be truly long-term, both perpetual contracts and leading applications should ultimately have their own dedicated chains. By the way, a heads up that on September 16, @initia will have a livestream, and I've heard there might be new mint surprises, so don't miss this livestream.