# 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.

Circle's Acquisition of Axelar Sparks Controversy: Giant Wants the Team, Not the Token

Circle, the stablecoin giant, has announced the acquisition of the core team and intellectual property of Interop Labs, the initial developer of the cross-chain protocol Axelar Network. However, the deal explicitly excludes the Axelar Network project itself, its foundation, and its native token AXL. These will continue to operate independently under community governance, with another contributing team, Common Prefix, taking over Interop Labs' former activities. This "acquire-the-team, not-the-token" structure has caused significant controversy and triggered a 15% drop in the price of AXL. The crypto community is divided into opposing camps. The opposition, including VCs and prominent figures, argues the move is a de facto "rug pull." They contend it is unethical for the team and equity holders to profit from the acquisition while token holders, who funded the project's early development, are left with an asset that may now be worthless. Critics state this highlights a fundamental conflict between equity and token-based financing. Supporters, including investment chiefs, defend the move as a normal market behavior. They explain that in traditional capital structures, tokens sit at the very bottom, below debt and equity. In acquisitions, it is standard for higher-priority stakeholders to be paid first, and tokens have no inherent claim to proceeds. They argue Circle acted within existing commercial frameworks by purchasing only the most valuable assets—the talent and IP. The core conflict exposed is the ambiguous legal and economic nature of tokens. They are often narratively treated as "quasi-equity" during good times but are structurally relegated to having no rights in events like acquisitions. This case underscores the urgent need for the industry to define and institutionalize the rights and position of tokens within capital structures.

Odaily星球日报12/16 03:27

Circle's Acquisition of Axelar Sparks Controversy: Giant Wants the Team, Not the Token

Odaily星球日报12/16 03:27

The Governance Struggle Behind the Power Play of Aave DAO and Aave Labs

The article details a governance conflict between Aave DAO and Aave Labs, centering on a dispute over revenue generated by the frontend. The controversy began when Aave Labs replaced the integrated ParaSwap with CoW Swap on its frontend and directed the resulting fees to its private address, rather than to the DAO treasury. An anonymous DAO member, EzR3aL, publicly criticized this move, accusing Labs of privatizing protocol value. Aave DAO represents the protocol layer, governed by $AAVE token holders who vote on proposals. Aave Labs is the development team responsible for building and maintaining the frontend, brand, and product partnerships. The core issue is whether Aave is a decentralized protocol owned by the DAO or a project built and controlled by Labs, and how this distinction affects revenue rights. DAO supporters argue that all value generated should benefit token holders, while Labs contends that frontend-related income rightfully belongs to them. The situation highlights a broader industry-wide governance dilemma: the tension between decentralized community control and the need for a centralized, efficient team to drive development and maintain market position. The article suggests that a potential compromise, such as transparent revenue-sharing agreements, may be necessary. It concludes that how Aave resolves this conflict could set a precedent for other DeFi projects facing similar governance challenges.

marsbit12/15 14:41

The Governance Struggle Behind the Power Play of Aave DAO and Aave Labs

marsbit12/15 14:41

Vision Announces Bitget Listing of VSN Token, Continuing International Expansion

Vision, a Bitpanda-backed protocol focused on bringing Europe into blockchain, has announced that its token VSN will be listed on Bitget. This marks another step in Vision’s international expansion, following its earlier listing on Binance Alpha. The Bitget listing is expected to enhance VSN’s liquidity and visibility in the global spot market, offering users another entry point to participate in the Vision ecosystem and its growing Web3 infrastructure. Florian Klein, Head of Business at Vision, stated that the move reflects the project’s rapid scaling momentum. VSN powers both the Vision and Bitpanda ecosystems, supporting staking, offering fee benefits, and enabling future governance. A portion of ecosystem revenue will be used for buybacks, burns, and staking rewards, allowing token holders to benefit from ecosystem growth. Vision is building a suite of Web3 products tailored to European regulations while remaining globally relevant. Its core offerings include the Bitpanda DeFi Wallet, Vision Protocol, Launchpad, and the upcoming Vision Chain for tokenization and institutional-grade on-chain infrastructure. Looking ahead, Vision plans to introduce governance, expand token utility, launch its chain, and form partnerships in tokenization and regulated digital assets. The Vision Web3 Foundation, based in Zug, Switzerland, oversees the development and governance of the VSN token.

深潮12/15 08:58

Vision Announces Bitget Listing of VSN Token, Continuing International Expansion

深潮12/15 08:58

Loss of Tens of Millions in Annual Income Sparks Governance Controversy, Aave Labs Accused of 'Stabbing DAO in the Back'

The recent dispute between Aave Labs and Aave DAO over fee allocation from the CoWSwap integration has exposed deeper governance and value-capture tensions within the Aave ecosystem. Aave Labs switched the default swap integration on its frontend from ParaSwap to CoWSwap, redirecting an estimated $10M+ in annual fees from the DAO treasury to an address controlled by Aave Labs. Aave Labs argues that its frontend is a separate product, not part of the protocol, and has the right to monetize it. Critics, including Aave DAO delegates, contend that the Aave brand’s value was built through DAO-funded efforts, risk management, and community trust, and that the Labs are extracting value that should belong to token holders. The conflict extends to other issues, including the controversial Horizon RWA deployment—which critics say has cost the DAO more than it has earned—and a proposed deployment on MegaETH that bypassed ongoing DAO discussions. The core issue is the blurred line between the protocol, managed by the DAO, and the frontend products, operated by Aave Labs. With Aave V4 intending to move more complexity into abstraction layers, the dispute over who controls—and profits from—the user experience becomes critical for the future of value distribution between equity (Labs) and token holders (DAO).

marsbit12/15 06:56

Loss of Tens of Millions in Annual Income Sparks Governance Controversy, Aave Labs Accused of 'Stabbing DAO in the Back'

marsbit12/15 06:56

AI Intervenes in Public Opinion Formation, Prediction Markets Face a Stress Test

The article discusses the growing risk of AI-manipulated public opinion and its potential to distort prediction markets, particularly in political contexts like elections. It presents a hypothetical 2028 US presidential race scenario where suspicious trading activity causes a candidate's market odds to surge without clear justification, leading to accusations of manipulation and foreign interference. While historical evidence shows that manipulating liquid prediction markets is difficult and costly due to arbitrage, the author argues that the convergence of prediction markets, social media, and 24/7 news coverage amplifies the political impact of even failed manipulation attempts. Such events can erode trust and fuel conspiracy theories, regardless of their actual effect on election outcomes. The article acknowledges that prediction markets remain valuable in an AI-saturated information environment where traditional polls are increasingly vulnerable to AI-generated responses. However, it calls for improved governance: news outlets should prioritize reporting on liquid markets, platforms must enhance monitoring for manipulative trading, and regulators should enforce anti-manipulation rules and transparency requirements. If responsibly managed, prediction markets can complement traditional tools and support a healthier democratic ecosystem.

比推12/15 06:07

AI Intervenes in Public Opinion Formation, Prediction Markets Face a Stress Test

比推12/15 06:07

After the Wealth Effect Disappears, The Myth or Elegy of Decentralization

The article "After the Wealth Effect Disappears: The Myth or Elegy of Decentralization" critically examines the evolution and challenges of decentralization, focusing on Ethereum and Bitcoin. It argues that while institutions benefit from long-term, low-risk strategies, retail investors face increasing pressure as wealth concentration grows. The piece highlights how Ethereum’s shift from PoW to PoS and its embrace of L2 scaling solutions have compromised its decentralized ideals, leading to greater centralization in governance and node operation. Similarly, Bitcoin’s limitations in smart contract functionality and its reliance on a small group of developers underscore the tension between ideological purity and practical demands. The author notes that stablecoins like USDT and USDC are increasingly dominating Ethereum’s ecosystem, further centralizing influence. Despite these shifts, Ethereum remains the most balanced platform between decentralization and capital efficiency, though its original vision of a "world computer" has given way to a more intermediary-driven, financialized model. The conclusion reflects on the inevitable trade-offs between decentralization, trust minimization, and the realities of market dynamics, suggesting that the ideals of crypto-punk movements are being overshadowed by institutional adoption and economic pragmatism.

深潮12/13 05:27

ETC Olympia Development Part 1: Implementing ECIP-1111 and ECIP-1112

ETC Olympia Development Series Part 1: Implementing ECIP-1111 and ECIP-1112 This article introduces the first part of the Ethereum Classic Olympia development series, focusing on the implementation of ECIP-1111 and ECIP-1112. These two proposals are the only components within the broader Olympia framework that modify consensus behavior. ECIP-1111 modernizes the fee market by introducing an EIP-1559-style mechanism with a base fee and optional priority tip (miner tip). A key difference from Ethereum is that the base fee is not burned but is instead redirected to a treasury address defined by ECIP-1112. It also adds support for Type-2 transactions and the BASEFEE opcode (0x48), ensuring compatibility with modern EVM tooling and wallets. Crucially, it does not change miner rewards, monetary policy, or existing transaction types. ECIP-1112 defines an immutable, deterministic treasury smart contract that will receive the redirected base fees. This vault is designed to be receive-only upon activation, meaning it can accumulate value but cannot distribute funds until a separate, subsequent governance layer (defined in other ECIPs) is deployed and activated on the contract layer. The article emphasizes the modular architecture of Olympia. While the suite includes five ECIPs (1111-1115), only these two affect consensus. This separation ensures that the core protocol remains minimal and auditable, while future governance and funding mechanisms can evolve independently at the contract level without requiring further hard forks. The implementation is currently in the draft stage per the ECIP-1000 process. Any decision to move forward with mainnet activation will require extensive testing on the Mordor testnet and full community review.

金色财经12/12 11:31

ETC Olympia Development Part 1: Implementing ECIP-1111 and ECIP-1112

金色财经12/12 11:31

The Game Between Tokens and Equity: Revealing the Fundamental Conflict Behind Token Economics

The article "The Dark Side of Altcoins" by Crypto Dan explores the fundamental conflict between company equity and token holders in crypto projects. It argues that most projects are essentially companies with tokens, creating a structural conflict where equity (backed by VCs and boards) inevitably captures value at the expense of token holders. This leads to tokens trending toward zero despite project success. Hyperliquid is highlighted as an exception because it avoided VC equity financing, directing all economic value to the protocol instead of a corporate entity. The piece explains that tokens cannot legally function like stocks without being classified as securities, triggering regulatory issues. The ideal structure involves no company revenue capture, value accrual to token holders via mechanisms like buybacks, and DAO-controlled economic decisions. However, true alignment requires no corporate structure at all, akin to Bitcoin or Ethereum. The core issue is structural: tokens fail due to design flaws like VC funding, private sales, unlock schedules, or company revenue retention. Solutions require investors to stop funding flawed models and support projects like Hyperliquid that prioritize tokenholder alignment through thoughtful design.

比推12/11 19:00

The Game Between Tokens and Equity: Revealing the Fundamental Conflict Behind Token Economics

比推12/11 19:00

Stable TGE Tonight, Will the Market Still Buy into the Stablecoin Public Chain Narrative?

Stable, a Layer 1 blockchain supported by Bitfinex and Tether, is set for its mainnet launch on December 8th. It is designed with a focus on stablecoin infrastructure, using USDT as the native gas token to enable sub-second settlements and feeless peer-to-peer transfers. The native token, STABLE, has a fixed supply of 100 billion and is not used for gas fees but for governance, staking, and ecosystem incentives. Token allocation includes 10% for Genesis Distribution (fully unlocked at launch), 40% for ecosystem and community growth, and 25% each for the team and investors (with a 1-year cliff and linear release). The network uses a DPoS consensus model where users stake STABLE to participate in validation and governance. Prior to launch, Stable conducted two pre-deposit phases, which saw massive demand and technical issues, raising concerns over fairness and KYC delays. The project raised $28 million in seed funding at a $300 million valuation. Market expectations are mixed. Pre-launch perpetual trading suggests an FDV around $3 billion, while prediction markets indicate an 85% probability of FDV exceeding $2 billion post-launch. Pre-depositors may see returns between 7% to 16.9% based on current estimates. Exchanges like Bitget and Bybit have announced support, but major platforms like Binance and Coinbase have not.

marsbit12/08 07:42

Stable TGE Tonight, Will the Market Still Buy into the Stablecoin Public Chain Narrative?