Hello everyone, today let's discuss a sobering real-world issue: is the "iron rice bowl" financial asset you believe in truly safe?

Recently, a news story caused a stir in the international political arena. On January 5, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council suddenly announced the freezing of all assets in Switzerland belonging to a former politician and their associates, with an initial freeze period of four years, extendable indefinitely. This move directly exposed the facade of "Swiss neutrality" and "banking secrecy," and also served as a wake-up call to every ordinary investor: how much of the money stored in banks actually belongs to you?

Here's the full story. On January 3, the U.S. took action, and even faster than the U.S. judicial authorities, Switzerland announced asset freezes the next day, citing a lofty reason—"preventive anti-money laundering measures." The official promise was "to return illegal funds after verification," but the question is: who defines what is "illegal"? Who has the authority to freeze assets with a single order? The answer is straightforward and blunt—those with strong influence over international politics.

Many once believed Switzerland was a "wealth refuge," but now they realize that this port has no independent course and simply sways with the international political winds. The lessons of history are right before our eyes: during the Cold War, Soviet officials' assets were frozen; after the Ukraine crisis in 2022, billions of Swiss francs belonging to certain oligarchs were frozen, with yachts, deposits, and real estate all seized; officials from Iran, North Korea, and other countries have long been isolated by the global financial system.

These examples may sound like stories of "big figures," but don't be naive enough to think ordinary people are immune. The security of financial assets has never been a technical issue but a political one. When international relations change and geopolitical tensions escalate, even the funds of ordinary depositors can face risks. What we see is a phenomenon: the power of state actors increasingly penetrates the myth of "sacred private property."

This has implications for both crypto asset holders and traditional financial participants. True asset security may not lie in diversifying across different baskets but in the inherent resistance to censorship of the asset itself. This is also why more and more people are paying attention to decentralized asset allocation schemes—because even the safest centralized institutions can be frozen instantly by a single order.

The bottom line is clear: in the global financial system, there is no absolute safe haven, only relative asset allocation strategies. Be cautious of financial promises that claim "ultimate safety," and also understand that genuine wealth protection requires multi-dimensional, decentralized thinking.