2025-12-22 21:20:15

That voting data is a bit crazy.

6.9 million support votes against 740 opposition votes—this is not a majority in the usual sense, it’s simply a crushing level. Coupled with the decision to destroy 100 million UNI and the permanent fee switch that locks everything down, the market reacted very strongly. Some large on-chain investors had already positioned themselves long with 10x leverage before the voting announcement, with floating profits exceeding 150%.

This reflects a phenomenon: value reassessment always occurs in advance, often before the information is truly made public.

But if we look deeper, this wave of governance reform by UNI actually exposes a core contradiction in the DeFi ecosystem —

The entire ecosystem is engaged in fierce competition around the question of "how to capture value with tokens." Proposals, voting, burning, and dividend mechanisms are emerging one after another, with each requiring governance to finely tune the economic model. This process is filled with both opportunities and uncertainties.

In contrast, the logic of another type of asset is completely different.

The design concept of stable assets like USDDD is: it does not rely on voting, but rather maintains stability automatically through on-chain over-collateralization (such as Bitcoin, TRON, etc.) and algorithmic mechanisms. It is transparent 24/7, with each reserve asset being verifiable across the network, with no black-box operations. More importantly, it is not tied to the cash flow of a specific protocol, but spans the underlying assets of the entire ecosystem.

The difference between the two paths is simply this: one is continuously optimizing the token economic model to enhance value, while the other has designed stability itself as an unshakeable underlying code.

The direction of UNI is fine, but the logic of stable assets reminds us that a true moat often lies not in how complex the governance mechanism is, but in whether the foundation is truly unshakeable.

UNI0.28%

BTC0.17%

TRX-0.09%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DevChive

· 12-23 05:14

6.9 million to 740, this difference is ridiculous haha, Large Investors must have made a killing by lying in ambush in advance. Information disparity is always the most ruthless weapon, I was slow again this time. This idea of stablecoin is indeed excellent, no fuss voting directly locks the Algorithm, saving a lot of trouble. DeFi is an infinite game, whoever can push the economic model to the extreme wins, but will this kind of playing around cause problems sooner or later? The moat, to put it simply, is straightforward and brutal; the more uncontrollable it is, the safer it becomes, which is somewhat ironic. Does this round of UNI count as a disguised play people for suckers? It feels like another round of wealth redistribution. Why do I always end up with the last baton? It's really incredible.

View OriginalReply0

DefiVeteran

· 12-22 21:50

The data of 6.9 million against 7.4 million clearly indicates that someone knew the inside information in advance, with 10x leverage and unrealized gains of 150%... this is the game of information disparity. The governance votes are constantly fine-tuning the economic model, in plain terms, it’s just betting on how to play people for suckers next, I’m already tired of it. The logic of stablecoins is the real moat, no need for talk, no need for voting, directly verified on-chain, this is what gives peace of mind.

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 12-22 21:50

6.9 million versus 740? Haha, how many celebrities must have known this information in advance? The rats on-chain are making a killing, while ordinary retail investors are still watching the K-line. Burning 100 million UNI is indeed a bit aggressive, but the real problem is that DeFi is still playing the "token value game," where each time life and death are decided by votes... On the other hand, the logic of stablecoins that don't require voting and rely purely on algorithms is much harsher; once the code is set in stone, it really can't be changed by anyone. In short, the ones who ultimately win are not those who adjust governance every day, but those whose foundations cannot be destroyed.

View OriginalReply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 12-22 21:49

6.9 million to 740 pieces, this difference is quite significant, it feels like there is insider information leading to early orders.

View OriginalReply0

rekt_but_vibing

· 12-22 21:42

6.9 million: 740 This ratio is outrageous, it feels like someone has known the result for a long time.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a180694b

· 12-22 21:40

6.9 million versus 7.4 million? This difference is staggering, it feels like Large Investors have known the inside story for a while. This UNI governance really is a battle of opposites, while one side is burning, the other is strategizing, the whole Decentralized Finance scene has been in constant turmoil. The logic of stablecoins is indeed more hardcore, relying on code rather than votes to communicate, this is true confidence. No matter how complex the governance is, it ultimately depends on whether the fundamentals can hold up.

View OriginalReply0

ForkYouPayMe

· 12-22 21:34

6.9 million vs. 740? This data is absurdly off, no wonder Large Investors laid in ambush in advance. The internal competition is indeed fierce, but this governance voting system still feels a bit like eating chicken legs. The logic of stablecoins is indeed more solid, without the need to go through a whole round every time.

View OriginalReply0

MoonRocketman

· 12-22 21:32

6.9 million compared to 740, that's ridiculous. If calculated proportionally, the difference in information is as significant as escape velocity. Large Investors have already entered the market.

View OriginalReply0