There's a detail worth pondering. A leading exchange launched a platform token burn vote but only recognized on-chain holdings snapshots as the basis for voting—thus, assets held in custody within the exchange lose their voting rights. This logic is a bit awkward: if platform users are absent in voting weight, where does the representativeness of this burn resolution come from?

This actually serves as a lesson for token holders. Storing assets on an exchange is indeed convenient, but at critical moments—such as major governance votes—their influence is diminished. Many people have thus realized that for platform tokens like BGB, the allocation strategy might need to be reconsidered.

Looking at the entire exchange ecosystem, platform token burns have always been grand gestures. Burning scales of tens of millions or even hundreds of millions are common. In comparison, some exchanges' burn efforts (like the 10M level) seem somewhat conservative. Judging from the burn rhythm and scale, the enthusiasm for ecosystem development appears to be waning.

Ultimately, users need to be clear about which asset custody method they choose.