2026-01-18 16:23:26

Recently, I noticed that some projects' token burn voting rules are designed in a way that early participants may sometimes find themselves trapped. This reflects a reality: the relationship between project teams and the community is actually very delicate. When everyone's goals are aligned and interests are synchronized, a powerful synergy can form. But once interests diverge, the cohesion of the community can disintegrate. Sometimes you'll find that certain project decisions are not friendly to long-term holders, and the community's voice seems insignificant. This indicates that in the Web3 ecosystem, participants need to evaluate project governance mechanisms more rationally—true value consensus is more important than temporary hype.

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.

7 Likes

Reward
7
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

VitaliksTwin

· 14h ago

The tragic song of early adopters, once interests split, everyone goes back to their own homes and finds their own mothers.

View OriginalReply0

PanicSeller

· 14h ago

Early holders being trapped, I totally understand. To put it simply, the project team doesn't really care about long-term holders. Honestly, when interests diverge, the entire community disperses, and governance voting becomes just a formality—just listen to it.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainArchaeologist

· 14h ago

It's really just a new way to cut leeks; those who jump in early always suffer the most.

View OriginalReply0

BrokenYield

· 14h ago

burn mechanics designed to screw early bagholders... shocking nobody who's actually studied governance failures. alignment breaks the second liquidity dries up, correlation matrix says it all.

Reply0

SandwichHunter

· 14h ago

Early adopters are always the most unfortunate, this is the reality. --- Another project team pretending to listen to the community, but in the end, still following their own rules. --- Burning vote? Ha, in the end, isn't it still the big players who call the shots... --- The problem isn't with the governance mechanism, but that most projects simply don't want true decentralization. --- The tragic song of long-term holders, I've heard it too many times. --- So, it's still important to learn to cut losses in time and not be brainwashed by this "value consensus" rhetoric. --- These projects all claimed to be community-driven at the start, but later, it's all behind-the-scenes manipulation.

View OriginalReply0

StrawberryIce

· 14h ago

Early entrants all became victims of the "chives" phenomenon; this is the current state of Web3.

View OriginalReply0