River mechanism is coming of age! After this mechanism failure, what River did was completely different from the reaction of most projects. It didn’t disappear, didn’t shift blame, didn’t drag its feet, but instead directly took a route that a more mature protocol would adopt. First, it made the issues public, then brought the entire repair process into community governance! Pausing the conversion certainly brought shocks, but from the subsequent actions, one key point can be seen; River did not treat the incident as a price accident, but as a system-level stress test. The context was clarified in the AMA, governance forum discussions on parameters were made public, mathematical models were rewritten, simulation tests were conducted, and a gradual rollout was planned. This entire process resembles the standard actions of protocols like Maker and Aave when facing risks, rather than the frantic patching of an experimental project. River is trying to build a self-healing capability for the protocol. Upgrading the mechanism from a one-time dynamic airdrop to a controllable rhythm, predictable, and shock-resistant conversion structure; Turning short-term selling pressure into long-term governance assets; transforming single-point risks into a time-dispersed buffering mechanism. Everyone has felt the short-term volatility, but from an engineering and governance perspective, this looks more like a coming-of-age ceremony: Failure → Review → Public → Discussion → Upgrade Whether it can emerge depends on the implementation of the upgrade mechanism, but at least now River shows a willingness to become stronger!