Facts and opinions in the crypto world debate seem to give rise to many divisions, splitting projects into two or even more. The public will certainly refer to the initial debate that gave rise to the division of two major camps from one community between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. This was followed by the division between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, and then there was another between Ripple and Stellar. And if traced further, there are many more to mention.

Like one capitalist and the other advocating for the common people. However, which one is followed by many people or each developer, in reality, they themselves understand and know the language of factual truth. It becomes a lineage like the lineage of an idea's foundation that ultimately collides with differences.

Among the three major players mentioned in the first paragraph, there are indeed many others following the pattern of developers' disagreements within a project. What can be taken from all of this? Is it merely a matter of choosing between new projects or simply seeking opportunities based on differences in vision, mission, and ideology? The tone seems slightly suspicious of the language of honesty when questioned.

But let it all be just a narrative that has become fact and opinion. Isn’t crypto about freedom, and decentralization is also what’s being pursued? So it’s perfectly acceptable, isn’t it? Those who believe can believe, and those who don’t can choose not to. This is the true form of freedom (they say). If it becomes complicated, it’s not the goal to complicate it further, as each party bears their own profits and losses. Because, once again, this is financial freedom, as those who advocate for it claim.