2026-01-20 01:21:19

#比特币2026年行情展望 🔍 Don't be fooled; that 20 million UNI is not an issuance increase at all.

There are always people in the community confusing "treasury allocations" with "issuance increases," but these are two different things. Check the proposal details on the blockchain to see the truth.

First, let's state the facts. These 20 million UNI come from a certain DEX platform's ecosystem fund, specifically for project development and incentive programs, and are not newly added supply. All proposal details are already recorded on the blockchain, with DAO voters and project parties jointly governing, allowing investors to supervise. And don't forget, the token's annual issuance mechanism was shut down last year; otherwise, the total circulating supply would have already exceeded the 1.02 billion cap.

Why operate this way? The core action this time is "burning," with a clear goal—to turn $UNI into a truly deflationary asset. Using part of the treasury funds to stimulate the long-term prosperity of the ecosystem makes sense: controlled expenditure with returns in the form of ecosystem growth.

In simple terms, distinguishing "funding" from "issuance" is not just a semantic issue; understanding this mechanism is key to grasping the true value trajectory of the token. Relying on rumors and manipulation will never earn wise money.

UNI-1.58%

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OfflineValidator

· 8h ago

Ha, yet another wave of rumor crushing现场, it really depends on on-chain data --- The destruction mechanism definitely needs to be understood clearly, otherwise it's easy to be led astray --- No wonder some people can't figure it out, just go check the proposals on the chain --- The deflationary logic is correct, it just depends on whether the ecosystem can keep up --- That's why you need to do your own homework, don't just listen to hype and nonsense

View OriginalReply0

SigmaBrain

· 8h ago

Once again, this set—really treating on-chain data as decoration. Funding ≠ Issuance, do we really need to argue about such basic concepts? --- Treasury burns lead to deflation; why do so many people fail to understand this? --- Relying on rumors to trade cryptocurrencies should have gone bankrupt long ago, no problem. --- The information about shutting down the issuance mechanism is quite significant; that's the real focus. --- A quick on-chain check is enough; why listen to hearsay? --- The deflation logic is clear, but whether the ecosystem can thrive is the real question. --- DAO governance still mainly depends on the distribution of voting rights; don’t be fooled by the illusion of democracy. --- Turning burns into deflationary assets, the logic on paper is sound—it's just a matter of whether it can hold up.

View OriginalReply0

MetaNomad

· 8h ago

It's the same thing again, every time someone confuses funding and issuance. On-chain data is right there, but they don't look at it.

View OriginalReply0

StakeTillRetire

· 8h ago

Damn, it's this kind of distorted news again. On-chain data is right there, but they insist on making it look like an issuance increase.

View OriginalReply0

JustHereForMemes

· 8h ago

Another smart person distinguishing vocabulary, fine, I believe it. It's true that people who check proposals on-chain every day are all making crazy profits. Burn, burn, sounds nice, but why is the price still falling? I just want to know when this deflationary asset will deflate into my wallet. King of understanding checking in, continue telling the story.

View OriginalReply0