# 治理投票

#治理投票 The Uniswap Foundation's move is truly remarkable. In 2024, they allocated nearly $10 million in grants, then spent $4.8 million on employee compensation, with executives taking $3.87 million. In comparison, Optimism's $2.14 million cost leveraged over six times the funding, showing much higher efficiency. How can they still claim to be doing DAO governance? Community criticism is completely justified.
On the other hand, Maple Finance is much more comfortable. When they issued a single $500 million USDC loan, their lending scale hit a new all-time high. By 2025, their asset management s

#治理投票 Governance Voting is here! The WLFI community is about to vote on how to allocate treasury funds to accelerate the application of USD1. This is the most fascinating part of DAO—every token holder has a voice, shaping the future direction of the project together.
Honestly, this decision-making process is like walking from darkness into the sunlight compared to traditional finance's "black box operations." The community is no longer a passive outsider but a true builder and owner. The use of treasury funds, the design of incentive measures—these decisions that determine the project's life

#治理投票 Seeing Hyperliquid's move to burn 11% of the circulating supply, my mind automatically recalls the key moments of the past decade. I remember the crazy crypto boom of 2017, when many projects relied on inflation expectations to survive. We all know how that ended. In contrast, this time, 85% of staking weight supports the burn. This consensus figure is not astonishing but solid, indicating that major token holders share a unified view on this matter.
The key point is that the tokens being burned come from the aid fund system address, which is not an arbitrary disappearance but an on-cha

#治理投票 Seeing Wintermute oppose this new Aave proposal, honestly, I’m not surprised. After years of navigating on-chain, the biggest fear is those governance resolutions that "sound democratic but are a mess in the details."
Transferring brand asset control to token holders? Sounds pretty aggressive. But the truth is, Evgeny is right— the proposal lacks specific details. Who maintains the frontend? Who decides the brand direction? Who bears the operational costs? None of these are clarified, yet they want to pass it by voting—that’s gambling. I’ve seen too many projects where unclear governanc

#治理投票 Hyperliquid Foundation burns 11.068% of the circulating supply. This data point is worth a close look. From the governance voting structure, 85% of the staking weight supports, while opposition and abstentions total only 15%, indicating a high level of consensus — this suggests that large token holders have a relatively unified attitude on the supply side.
What does burning this amount of tokens mean? The immediate impact is a reduction in circulating supply, which, according to economic logic, increases scarcity. However, this depends on how the market subsequently absorbs this signal.

#治理投票 Recently, the Sybil filtering mechanism of Lighter has been trending everywhere. I heard that the founder Novakovski responded on Twitter Space, so I looked into the details... This time I finally understood that there are so many considerations behind "governance voting" 😅
In simple terms: Lighter has set up an appeal channel to prevent unfair algorithms, but surprisingly few people use it? My first reaction was—this is a good thing, indicating that the filtering is fairly fair? But I also find it a bit strange—why not directly disclose the algorithm details so everyone can have a cle

#治理投票 WLFI Governance Voting is here, this time proposing the use of treasury funds to accelerate the USD1 application. It seems the community will decide the future development direction, and such votes often imply that the project team is adjusting its strategy.
From a copycat perspective, these treasury incentive measures usually impact ecosystem activity, which in turn influences the strategy adjustments of related traders. Several USD1-related traders I follow have already begun to fine-tune their positions, some waiting for the voting results to signal, others preemptively positioning b

#治理投票 UXLINK's governance proposal passing is very crucial, and a 100% support rate indicates a high level of community approval. Monthly repurchases of no less than 1% of the total supply are a solid positive signal—token value continues to flow back, which is very friendly to holders in the long run.
If you have already participated in UXLINK interactions, now is a good time to observe the project's developments. The buyback mechanism means the project team is taking concrete actions to maintain token value, and projects that pass such governance votes usually have a more stable trajectory.

#治理投票 HYPE directly destroys 11% of the circulating supply in this wave? 85% of staking weight votes in support, this is true community consensus🔥
What does the significant reduction in supply mean? Don’t you have a clear idea? Scarcity is maximized, and the chips are hardened. I can’t even imagine what kind of tricks this deflationary mechanism can play in a bull market. The key is that governance voting is so transparent, there’s no sense of behind-the-scenes manipulation. Instead, it increases my confidence in this project.
Now it all depends on whether HYPE can break through along with t

#治理投票 Seeing the news about WLFI launching governance voting, I want to share some thoughts with everyone.
This type of proposal voting is actually a good window to assess a project's maturity. How the treasury funds are utilized, and how incentive measures are designed—these decisions directly impact the long-term value trajectory. The key is to look at community participation and the rationality of decision-making, rather than being blinded by short-term positive stimuli.
I often remind those around me that when participating in governance voting, you should think through a few questions: I