Speaking of Injective, there's always a subtle sense of disconnection.

Technically? No doubt about it. From the ground up, it's built as an architecture for financial trading, with native EVM support, order book engine, derivatives modules, and the iAssets framework—all the tools you would expect. Not only is the toolbox comprehensive, but many are also uniquely configured. Looking at the product deployment, it’s truly impressive—on-chain Pre-IPO contracts directly target core areas of traditional finance, and deep integration with institutional-level assets like BlackRock's BUIDL fund proves that this infrastructure can withstand real financial tests. The INJ 3.0 burn and buyback mechanism is also designed transparently, automating value capture issues.

But here’s the problem: high recognition within professional circles, low public awareness.

It’s like a top student with the best equipment, publishing papers in top journals, with peers praising their rigorous and innovative methodology, yet the public and industry have little impression of the name. It no longer needs to prove "whether it can be built," but now faces the tougher hurdle of "whether more people can use it."

This contradiction almost permeates every level. Technologically, it's fully mature; narratively, it still hasn't formed a memorable impression for the masses. It has already passed the construction phase doubts and now faces the complex test of adoption. It has strength but lacks buzz; depth but lacks breadth.

This is probably the most honest reflection of the current stage—standing on the line between "professional recognition" and "market breakout," taking a step forward could be boundless, but that step is not easy to take.