#以太坊大户持仓变化 Recently, a hot topic has been trending: a certain social platform announced that its algorithm will be fully open-sourced within 7 days, with updates and iterations every 4 weeks, along with detailed development documentation. Once the news broke, both the crypto and tech communities exploded.

$ETH founder Vitalik Buterin then responded, expressing support for transparency but stating that the four-week update cycle is "too aggressive." His core logic is quite hardcore: frequent algorithm updates could trigger a "cat-and-mouse game"—users organize to find vulnerabilities, platforms scramble to patch, ultimately leading to endless consumption battles. His suggestion is to extend the update cycle to once a year, ensuring transparency while maintaining system stability.

$SOL $ZEC was also mentioned in this discussion—regarding the transparency of algorithms in decentralized exchanges and wallets.

Behind the disagreement between these two industry giants, it reflects a deeper game: open-sourcing algorithms is a response to "black box public opinion," but open source itself does not equal fairness; it may even introduce hidden risks for platforms. Overly frequent adjustments can cause platforms to gradually lose initiative, or even be maliciously manipulated by organized groups.

Honestly, this is not just a technical dispute but a fundamental issue of how internet platforms should balance power. One side wants complete transparency, while the other worries that too much transparency could lead to loss of control—both perspectives have merit. The key question is: who holds the power to choose?

What do you think? Should algorithms be updated monthly or is an annual update more appropriate?