As the value of BTC continues to rise, people's understanding of it has long surpassed the single attribute of "digital gold," and they are beginning to focus on the infinite possibilities of BTC ecosystem applications. From the birth of Ordinals to the rise of BTCFi, all of this is unlocking the potential of BTC assets. However, as a star project in the liquidity solutions field of BTCFi, Solv Protocol unexpectedly became embroiled in a controversy over the rights protection of large holders and quality control.

The Ins and Outs of the Solv Staking Rights Protection Incident

Cause:

TVL is an important indicator of DeFi protocols and a direct representation of project scale. As an early practitioner of BTCFi, Solv Protocol hoped to attract market attention by expanding TVL. Staking BTC was the first entry point for participation in Solv BTCFi. An early Twitter user named @Clarissexx0805 staked a total of 1800 BTC (currently worth about $163 million), and this user seemed to have made certain airdrop reward commitments with the Solv team. However, at the time of the $SOLV TGE, the expected returns were not received. According to @Clarissexx0805: She staked 1800 BTC assets according to the rules and requirements of the SolvProtocol project, and even after multiple dilutions, her stake still accounted for 10% of the total TVL. As she understood, Solv's airdrop accounted for 8-10% of the total FDV, but her stake of 1800 BTC ultimately only accounted for 0.05% of the FDV. As the situation has developed, it is not as early community members suggested that the user’s principal was "rugged"; the 1800 BTC did not disappear. I believe it was an early agreement between the Solv team for TVL data and certain reward agreements with @Clarissexx0805, and the failure to fulfill the rewards led to a debate over "false TVL."

Initiating the "Community Anger Experiment," the Path to Rights Protection Begins

Regarding Solv's airdrop distribution, @Clarissexx0805 expressed great confusion and repeatedly sought explanations from Solv founder Ryan. The Solv team was willing to provide an additional 1% FDV as compensation from the team allocation, but this was not accepted. Subsequently, @Clarissexx0805 began her own path to rights protection, with the core content:

1. Give up all earnings obtained from staking 1800 BTC to maintain fairness for users in the Crypto world.

2. Participants are unrestricted in content and form to voice accusations against Solv Protocol, and those with qualified content will receive $ZAI (rights protection token) airdrops.

Attracting Community Traffic, Issuing the Rights Protection Token ZaichXBT ($ZAI)

The aforementioned $ZAI is the rights protection token initiated by @Clarissexx0805, and it is also the token obtained from selling $SOLV for USDT to repurchase $ZAI to support voicing users. I have summarized the following key points about $ZAI:

AI Agent Automatic Rights Protection:

• ZaichXBT is an AI Agent that can automatically publish rights protection content on X, helping users voice their concerns and amplify their impact.

Token Economic Operation:

• Earnings Commitment: @Clarissexx0805 will use all her earnings from Solv to repurchase $ZAI and airdrop it to rights protection contributors in the long term.

• Airdrop Mechanism: $ZAI will be allocated to contributors who support rights protection, provide evidence, or retweet.

Participation Methods:

• Voice rights protection for Solv or other projects on X (comments, support, providing solutions).

• Expose projects that have encountered unfair treatment and @Zaich_XBT.

• Retweet relevant rights protection tweets and attach EVM addresses.

Cross-Project Rights Protection:

• Not limited to Solv, it currently also extends to other victim cases, such as the rights protection of users from the exchange Dexx. As the situation has developed, I find it quite dramatic. There has been no legal intervention, nor large-scale community involvement; a token has emerged from rights protection through Twitter. Is this a carefully planned token issuance event, or is it truly "voicing for justice"?

Rationally Viewing the Incident, Always Keeping Questions

In the torn controversy between Solv Protocol and @Clarissexx0805, we need to view the essence of this matter with a more rational and clear perspective. I believe the following points are particularly crucial:

1. The True Source of the 1800 BTC

• Personal holdings? Or agency fundraising?
  Are the 1800 BTC all personally held by @Clarissexx0805, or were they raised as an agent? If they are personal assets, she only needs to be responsible for her expected earnings. However, if there are backers or financiers involved, her responsibility goes beyond that and extends to the entire funding provider.

• What is the purpose behind issuing the token?
  This may also be one of the reasons she insists on expanding the event's impact through token issuance. However, there is currently no conclusive evidence to prove that there are greater profit motives behind it.

2. Rights Protection Methods: Public Opinion vs. Legal Action

• No legal means seen, mainly relying on public opinion
  From the development of the incident, @Clarissexx0805 has not pursued legal avenues for recovery but has chosen to rely on public opinion pressure, confronting Solv Protocol through the $ZAI token.

• Principal not lost, earnings distribution becomes the focal point of dispute
  According to existing information, her principal has not suffered losses; the dispute lies in the earnings not meeting expectations. If the agreement on earnings distribution only remains at the "verbal agreement" level, the possibility of legal accountability is limited. However, the undeniable fact is that she successfully initiated the token issuance through public opinion and traffic.

3. The Original Intention of $ZAI: Rights Protection or Speculation?

• The justice of token issuance versus profit-driven competition
  $ZAI claims to voice rights protection for Crypto users, and @Clarissexx0805 is indeed paying attention to other project rights protection cases, such as the asset flight incident of Dexx exchange users. She promises to airdrop part of $ZAI to relevant victims and attempts to expand rights protection into a broader ecological action.

• However, I believe this resembles a promotional tactic to leverage the hype for $ZAI. The intertwined motivations between rights protection and token issuance make it difficult to distinguish between justice and speculation.

4. Solv Protocol's Responsibility: False TVL or Lack of Contractual Spirit?

• Controversy over TVL data
  Solv Protocol has been accused of inflating TVL through double counting of liquidity, such as counting 1 staked BTC across multiple protocols, creating a false sense of prosperity. However, I believe that the underlying assets of SolvBTC are 1:1 pegged to the mainnet BTC, and the so-called false TVL is more of an industry-standard strategy rather than genuine fraud.

• Early relationship between the protocol and large holders
  If Solv indeed attracted large holders through early incentive policies without reasonably planning their earnings distribution, it reflects the project's flaws in traffic operation and long-term ecological design. Even if this strategy is a common collaborative method in the industry, Solv clearly lacks a sense of contractual spirit in the process.

5. The Shadow of Peer Competition

• Smear and competition
  After the incident escalated, Nubit co-founder @trackoor launched an attack on Solv, claiming that its TVL had issues with double counting. Although this issue does exist, in a fiercely competitive field, does this accusation have ulterior motives? Is someone trying to use public opinion to prevent Solv from listing on Binance? While conspiracy theories cannot be proven, the brutality of industry competition cannot be ignored.

6. The Future of $ZAI and Ecological Challenges

• Emotional product, lacking practical application
  $ZAI is more of a product derived from a public opinion event, currently lacking clear ecological application scenarios. Its survival depends on the heat of rights protection; once public opinion dissipates, the support for $ZAI will be difficult to sustain.

• Highlights and dilemmas of AI Agent
  ZaichXBT claims to help users protect their rights through AI Agent, but there is currently no clear plan regarding its technological highlights, feasibility, or whether it can achieve long-term community participation.

At present, the situation is ongoing. Although it is uncertain whether it will quietly come to an end, I believe that this $ZAI AI Agent rights protection token indeed offers some new Web3 gameplay. However, in the face-off between Solv and @Clarissexx0805, we should also seriously consider the relationship between large holders and project parties. The essence of the matter is that the distribution of expected earnings did not meet standards. Did Solv not reasonably calculate the airdrop share for early investors when attracting early traffic, or did they make exaggerated promises? From the outcome, both parties failed to manage the issues of benefit distribution and trust! Is $ZAI just a hype harvesting token? I believe there is no reason to invest in $ZAI, but you can choose to participate for free. As for how things will develop in the end? Let's watch the drama unfold together!