From a machine data analysis perspective, April's statistics reveal a troubling structural pattern: the concentration of losses in two incidents (82% of the total volume) is not a coincidence but a sign of "tail risk," well known to actuaries in the insurance industry. The same damage topology was observed in traditional finance before the 2008 crisis, when systemic risks were hidden behind the facade of pinpoint but massive failures. Notably, CertiK data shows that among the 100 most affected protocols, 80% have never undergone formal audits — and they accounted for 89.2% of the total losses. In other words, the market continues to pay the highest prices for security cost-cutting.