I just looked through several on-chain records of NFT fragmenting, and the more I read, the more I feel that “ordering” is kind of subtle. Someone enters the Mempool, and their transaction gets snatched ahead, pulling their slippage; someone else does everything the right way, but watches helplessly as fees get pushed higher. **Who, exactly, does on-chain “cutting in line” affect?** Either the big players or bots—either way, it’s people like us who get stuck in the middle. To be honest, I’ve always thought MEV is a double-edged sword—it makes the chain more transparent, but **transparency doesn’t mean fairness**. Weren’t people recently also questioning whether the on-chain data labeling system is “lagging,” or even “misleading”? Honestly, that’s kind of funny: the more you rely on “visible ordering,” the easier it is to get played by those invisible “clamps.”

Forget it—let’s just put it plainly. Lately, looking at these transaction records has been giving me some feelings: blockchain tech looks solid on the surface, but underneath it all is a game of human incentives. In any case, I’m a bit wary of the protocol’s “default ordering” these days. But from another angle, it’s precisely because these “rules that can be flipped” exist that NFT finance becomes kind of interesting—**between structure and storytelling, there’s room for you to mess around.**