The substantial analysis is in the video itself, thank you for the translation.
You have done a thorough and reasoned analysis.

Earlier in the year I believe an irreparable adversarial state was reached between the InLeo team and Hive-first adherents. There may have been a window for mediation and reconciliation but it appears that has passed.

Some primary builders and holders of Hive perceive or believe that InLeo has entered into a net extractive state, removing more value from Hive than it generates.

The DHF proposal from the InLeo team at the beginning of the year that was not funded, appeared to have the purpose of marketing InLeo to other chains, rather than advancing Hive itself.

The InLeo team itself does appear to be decoupling from Hive. LEO is no longer a native Layer 2 token on Hive, but rather a Arbitrum native token. The affiliated token SURGE is going to be substantially migrated to Arbitrum.

Some of the hype/marketing verbiage around LEO/SURGE/LSTR sounds remarkably similar to the language that was used to market CubFinance.

I was initially enthusiastic about the LeoDex project, but it raised a redflag to me when there was no Hive functionality in LeoDex.

Given that the InLEO team and some of if its enthusiasts seem permanently out of alignment with the direction and priorities of Hive, an exodus or separation may the best choice for all parties.

When InLeo users have substantially migrated assets out of the Hive ecosystem, it's not clear what that means for InLeo as a frontend to Hive. Theoretically InLeo could fork Hive, establish a Leo-validator network, or perhaps even use some functionality of Arbitrum to store the textual data of InLeo posts.

I'm curious to see which direction the team takes InLeo, it appears to be positioned away from Hive.