I have been thinking about a question recently: why do some Decentralized Finance protocols always seem very "rigid"?

I was reminded of an interesting phenomenon in linguistics – the power of language lies not in pre-written sentences, but in a set of concise grammatical rules that can combine to create endless expressions. However, most on-chain financial protocols have done the opposite: they directly "hard code" specific financial products, resulting in a mountain of code, and every iteration is a struggle.

You will understand by comparing. The traditional approach is that the protocol hardcodes the entire logic of a specific financial product; if you want to add new features, you have to modify the underlying code, and the upgrade process is extremely cumbersome. It's like a novel that has already been published; you can't even change a plot point. The combinations between protocols are also very rigid, with interfaces being diverse, data flows being interrupted, and it’s impossible to form a real ecological flow. The power of innovation is entirely in the hands of the development team, wasting the imagination of the global community.

What if we think differently? Instead of directly "writing novels", it is better to first define the "grammar rules". Design a set of extremely simple yet powerful foundational components that can be flexibly combined. The rules for generating value, interaction, and settlement are clearly defined at this level, allowing upper-level financial products, governance solutions, and even entire sub-ecosystems to be creatively developed by developers and the community as if they were constructing sentences. As long as they adhere to the same rule system, any innovation can be recognized by the ecosystem and assigned value.

Only such an architecture at the bottom truly has generative properties.