# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Governance

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Governance", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

Uniswap’s fee switch goes live – Will UNI’s price head to $8.4 or $4.5?

Uniswap's UNIfication proposal passed with strong governance consensus, activating protocol fees and initiating a burn of 100 million UNI tokens. This shift aims to create sustainable value capture and introduce deflationary tokenomics. Despite these fundamental strengths and Uniswap's dominant DEX trading volume, market reaction remains cautious. Technically, UNI shows signs of potential exhaustion after a multi-year consolidation pattern, with key resistance at $8.4 and downside liquidity clusters near $5.1. While the long-term outlook is reinforced, short-term price risk persists amid subdued momentum.

ambcrypto12/27 02:03

Uniswap’s fee switch goes live – Will UNI’s price head to $8.4 or $4.5?

ambcrypto12/27 02:03

Curve Governance Upheaval: 17 Million CRV Funding Proposal Rejected, Capital Entities Become New Decision-Making Core

A significant governance proposal within the Curve DAO, requesting 17 million CRV in funding for development team Swiss Stake AG, was recently rejected. Major veCRV holders, including Convex and Yearn, voted against the proposal, effectively blocking its passage. The rejection reflects two key concerns within the community: a demand for greater transparency and accountability regarding the use of previous grants and future spending plans, and a reluctance from large token holders to dilute the value of their veCRV holdings without a clear, direct return on investment. The article highlights a shift in DeFi governance, moving away from a model of automatic funding approval. It contrasts the veToken model, used by Curve, with standard governance systems. The ve model binds voting power to long-term token lock-ups, attracting capital-heavy players focused on long-term gains. This, combined with the prevalence of vote-aggregating protocols like Convex, is centralizing decision-making power with large capital providers rather than the broader community or even project founders. The outcome of this vote suggests that future governance power in Curve may lie primarily with these major stakeholders.

marsbit12/26 16:03

Curve Governance Upheaval: 17 Million CRV Funding Proposal Rejected, Capital Entities Become New Decision-Making Core

marsbit12/26 16:03

Uniswap governance approves UNIfication — clears path for 100M UNI burn and protocol fees

Uniswap governance has approved the UNIfication proposal, a major tokenomics overhaul. The vote passed overwhelmingly on December 25, triggering a one-time burn of 100 million UNI tokens from the treasury and activating protocol-level fees after a two-day timelock. This shifts value capture from the interface to the protocol itself, while Uniswap Labs will discontinue frontend fees. Despite broad support, liquidity providers express concerns that protocol fees may reduce their profitability, potentially leading to liquidity migration or reliance on UNI incentives. Market participants will now monitor post-execution impacts on LP behavior, fee revenue, and overall ecosystem health.

ambcrypto12/25 20:33

Uniswap governance approves UNIfication — clears path for 100M UNI burn and protocol fees

ambcrypto12/25 20:33

Behind the Rejection of the $17M CRV Grant: Founder's Proposal Power Weakened, Convex and Yearn Become Key Players

A proposal to grant 17 million CRV tokens (worth approximately $1.7 million) to Swiss Stake AG, a long-time core development team, was rejected in a Curve Finance governance vote. Major veCRV holders, including Convex and Yearn, voted against it, wielding enough voting power to determine the outcome. The rejection reflects two key shifts in DAO governance: First, communities are demanding greater accountability, transparency, and measurable results for treasury grants, moving beyond unconditional funding. Second, large veCRV holders, motivated by self-interest, are resistant to proposals that dilute their token value without clear, foreseeable benefits to them. The incident highlights the evolving power dynamics within Curve's governance. The veToken model, which ties voting rights to long-term locked capital, inherently concentrates power among large, capital-rich entities like Convex and Yearn. As users delegate their tokens to these protocols for yield and liquidity, governance is increasingly shifting from founders and communities to a form of "governance capitalism" dominated by major stakeholders.

marsbit12/25 13:15

Behind the Rejection of the $17M CRV Grant: Founder's Proposal Power Weakened, Convex and Yearn Become Key Players

marsbit12/25 13:15

Uniswap Foundation Team Receives High Salaries While Protocol and Token Price Show Weakness

The Uniswap Foundation (UF) faces criticism from the DeFi community over high executive compensation and perceived inefficiency in fund usage. According to a financial analysis comparing UF and the Optimism Foundation, UF allocated $9.99 million in grants but spent $4.79 million on employee salaries, with $3.87 million going to three executives alone. Total UF expenditures reached $12.8 million, with executive pay comprising 22% of the total. In contrast, Optimism’s grant council distributed $63.5 million in grants while spending only $2.14 million on staff compensation. The controversy has raised concerns among UNI token holders about the foundation’s value contribution, especially as UNI’s price and Uniswap’s TVL have significantly dropped from previous highs. Former Uniswap DAO contributor Pepo, who resigned earlier due to governance issues, publicly criticized UF for prioritizing its own interests over the DAO’s, citing lack of transparency and responsiveness. The situation highlights structural challenges within Uniswap’s multi-layered governance model, involving Uniswap Labs, the Foundation, and the DAO, often leading to conflicts of interest and accountability issues. UF has not yet officially responded to the criticisms.

marsbit12/25 11:46

Uniswap Foundation Team Receives High Salaries While Protocol and Token Price Show Weakness

marsbit12/25 11:46

Hyperliquid: Can $912 mln in token burns help HYPE target $40?

Hyperliquid (HYPE) has faced significant selling pressure, dropping from a high of $50 to around $24. To counter this, the Hyper Foundation burned 37 million HYPE tokens (worth over $912 million) after an 85% approval in a governance vote. This reduced the circulating supply by 11-13%, aiming to increase scarcity and ease sell pressure. Exchange outflows have exceeded inflows, suggesting reduced selling pressure. Recent data shows buyers are outpacing sellers for the first time in weeks, indicating potential momentum. If the burn positively impacts the market, HYPE could target $30 or even $40. However, failure may lead to a drop below $20.

ambcrypto12/25 04:02

Hyperliquid: Can $912 mln in token burns help HYPE target $40?

ambcrypto12/25 04:02

RWA Utility Tokens, Stop Kidding Yourselves

The article, written by lawyer Shao Jiadian, critically examines the common claim by RWA (Real World Asset) token projects that their tokens are "utility tokens" rather than securities. The author argues that regulatory bodies globally do not classify assets based on their self-proclaimed labels but on their actual economic function and structure. The core argument is that most so-called "utility RWA tokens" involve users investing money into a common asset pool managed by the project, with the expectation of profits derived from the project's efforts (e.g., dividends, revenue sharing from assets like real estate or equipment). This structure meets the criteria of an "investment contract" and is therefore treated as a security in major jurisdictions like the U.S., EU, Switzerland, and Hong Kong. Two key legal cases are cited as evidence: 1. **DeFiMoney Market (DMM):** Its fixed-yield token and "governance" token were both deemed securities by the SEC because investors' profits came from a managed asset pool. 2. **Unicoin (2025):** An asset-backed token promising returns from real estate and equity was charged by the SEC as an unregistered securities offering and fraud. The author highlights an inherent conflict: utility tokens emphasize *use* and *consumption*, while RWA tokens are fundamentally linked to *assets* and *returns*. Any token offering profit-sharing, dividends, or redeemable cash flows will be viewed as a security by regulators. The conclusion is stark: projects are not avoiding securities laws out of ignorance but to circumvent the stricter requirements of a regulated securities offering. The only viable paths to avoid securities classification are: 1. Purely functional tokens with no profit expectation. 2. Private offerings strictly for accredited investors. 3. Operating under specific regimes like Dubai's VARA that regulate security-like tokens as virtual assets. Ultimately, any RWA token offered to the public that is tradable and promises returns will almost certainly be treated as a security. The choice for projects is not between utility and security labels, but between "long-term compliance" and "short-term gambling."

marsbit12/25 03:13

RWA Utility Tokens, Stop Kidding Yourselves

marsbit12/25 03:13

Crypto Morning Brief: Kraken Plans to Launch Prediction Market, Trend Research to Purchase $1 Billion in ETH

Crypto Exchange Kraken plans to launch a prediction market service in 2026, as revealed by its global head of consumer business. In market news, U.S. initial jobless claims fell to 214,000, below expectations. BlackRock strategists suggest the Fed may deliver only limited rate cuts in 2026 as it nears neutral rates. In funding developments, LD Capital founder Yili Hua announced that Trend Research is preparing an additional $1 billion to buy more ETH, following a recent $137 million purchase. Meanwhile, a ZK verification platform, disclosed its tokenomics: a 1 billion token supply with significant allocations for ecosystem development and community incentives. Sonic Labs adjusted its airdrop model, shifting from large distributions to more sustainable incentive strategies, while Curve DAO rejected a $6.2 million funding proposal for core development, raising governance concerns. Polymarket confirmed a security breach via a third-party authentication provider, though the issue has been resolved. Other notable events include Aave’s founder facing criticism over a large token purchase ahead of a governance vote, and Metaplanet approving plans to raise funds toward a goal of holding 210,000 BTC by 2027.

marsbit12/25 01:21

Crypto Morning Brief: Kraken Plans to Launch Prediction Market, Trend Research to Purchase $1 Billion in ETH

marsbit12/25 01:21

Aave founder under scrutiny for $10M token purchase amid governance drama

Aave founder Stani Kulechov faces criticism for purchasing $10 million worth of AAVE tokens, with allegations that the move was intended to increase his voting power in a key governance proposal. Critics, including DeFi strategist Robert Mullins, claim the purchase could be used to vote against token holders' interests, highlighting concerns about governance attacks and the concentration of voting power. The controversy arises amid a heated vote on reclaiming control of Aave's brand assets through a DAO structure. Critics argue the proposal was rushed and note that a small group of large holders controls over 58% of the voting power, raising questions about the fairness of token-based governance.

cointelegraph12/24 13:43

Aave founder under scrutiny for $10M token purchase amid governance drama

cointelegraph12/24 13:43

After the ARFC Proposal, Does Aave Still Have Long-Term Investment Value?

An ARFC governance proposal has sparked significant debate within the Aave community, focusing on the control of brand assets and revenue distribution. The proposal, initiated by a former Aave Labs CTO, calls for transferring control of key intangible assets—including domain names, social media accounts, and the Aave brand—to the Aave DAO. This follows concerns that revenue from front-end operations, such as fees from CoW Swap integration, was directed to Aave Labs without DAO approval, raising issues of transparency and value capture for AAVE token holders. Snapshot voting, held from December 23–26, 2025, showed 64.15% against the proposal, 32.85% abstaining, and only 3.01% in favor, reflecting deep community division. The voting timeline over the holiday also drew criticism for potentially limiting participation. A large whale sold 230k AAVE during this period, causing a 10% price drop, though this was seen as a short-term reaction to governance uncertainty rather than a loss of faith in Aave’s fundamentals. Aave remains a leading DeFi lending protocol with over $33B TVL and a 60% market share. Recent developments include the conclusion of an SEC investigation with no action, plans for Aave V4 with cross-chain liquidity, expansion into RWA (real-world assets) aiming for $1B in scale, and a push toward mobile-friendly savings applications. The proposal highlights ongoing tension between decentralized governance and centralized execution as Aave scales. How Aave resolves this governance challenge may impact its long-term competitiveness, especially compared to protocols like Uniswap, which has successfully aligned tokenomics with protocol revenue.

marsbit12/24 11:27

After the ARFC Proposal, Does Aave Still Have Long-Term Investment Value?

marsbit12/24 11:27

活动图片

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow

Industry News