Recently, the allocation of ecosystem funds by a privacy-oriented public chain has sparked quite a bit of controversy.

Here's what happened: the project team proposed to allocate 2 million tokens from the ecosystem fund to sponsor a game that is about to go live on the chain. It sounds like a straightforward decision, but the voting process became quite contentious.

The opposition raised three main concerns. First, the gaming sector and the project's emphasis on value storage and privacy transactions seem somewhat disconnected. Second, the two previous projects operated by the sponsored team showed no significant progress, and their track record appears somewhat questionable. Third, this funding accounts for nearly half of the entire quarterly ecosystem budget, which is indeed a substantial amount.

The vote ultimately passed with only a narrow margin of less than 3 percentage points. Behind this discussion reflects an interesting phenomenon: as the size of the ecosystem fund grows, the challenge of how to spend money becomes more difficult.

In the early stages, projects focus on rapid development, but now they need to learn refined operations and cost control. Disagreements within the community are not necessarily a bad thing; the key lies in whether there are mature discussion processes and supervision systems in place. Relying solely on voting mechanisms often cannot solve problems that require professional judgment and in-depth assessment.