Speaking of $UNI's recent situation, it is indeed a bit delicate. The Unification proposal has certainly attracted attention—by activating the fee switch and token burn mechanism, it directly creates value returns for token holders, which sounds like a good positive development. The market response has also been positive, with everyone considering what this reform could bring.
However, the fallout from the foundation's salary controversy has not yet dissipated. This issue has touched many people's sore spots and has caused a tangible impact on community confidence. Old issues like governance transparency and checks and balances still hang over us.
In the short term, the benefits brought by the approval of the proposal are indeed worth noting. But in the long run, how to rebuild trust and improve governance mechanisms are the real challenges $UNI needs to address. $ETH $SOL ecosystem is also undergoing similar governance evolution, and it feels like this is an unavoidable topic for the entire Web3 space. What are your thoughts?
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.
9 Likes
Reward
9
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeBarbecue
· 16h ago
Really? A short-term bubble boost, but in the long run, it depends on whether governance can get it right. Right now, it's like injecting chicken blood.
The foundation's scandal hasn't even settled yet, and now there's talk of a destruction mechanism. It feels like just trying to divert attention.
Honestly, tokens don't mean much anymore. It all depends on whether the DAO is truly decentralized or not; otherwise, it's just storytelling.
View OriginalReply0
unrekt.eth
· 16h ago
The salary controversy really is the root of the problem; no matter how good the proposal is, it can't be justified.
View OriginalReply0
TokenTaxonomist
· 17h ago
ngl, the fee switch feels like a band-aid on a governance wound that won't close... let me pull up my spreadsheet on foundation comp patterns and statistically speaking, this trust deficit isn't getting fixed by token burns alone
Reply0
HashBard
· 17h ago
ngl the whole "burn mechanism = trust rebuild" narrative is kinda mid... like yeah tokens go poof but does that actually fix governance rot? 👀
Speaking of $UNI's recent situation, it is indeed a bit delicate. The Unification proposal has certainly attracted attention—by activating the fee switch and token burn mechanism, it directly creates value returns for token holders, which sounds like a good positive development. The market response has also been positive, with everyone considering what this reform could bring.
However, the fallout from the foundation's salary controversy has not yet dissipated. This issue has touched many people's sore spots and has caused a tangible impact on community confidence. Old issues like governance transparency and checks and balances still hang over us.
In the short term, the benefits brought by the approval of the proposal are indeed worth noting. But in the long run, how to rebuild trust and improve governance mechanisms are the real challenges $UNI needs to address. $ETH $SOL ecosystem is also undergoing similar governance evolution, and it feels like this is an unavoidable topic for the entire Web3 space. What are your thoughts?