2025-12-25 04:21:48

Someone has organized the financial ledger of a well-known DEX Foundation and uncovered an interesting numerical issue.

Last year, this foundation issued a total of $9.9929 million in grants, which seems quite generous. But upon closer inspection, employee salary expenses reached $4.7943 million, of which $3.8711 million was directly used to support executives. Let's do the math: 22% of the total annual expenditure went into executive pockets, which is indeed a significant proportion.

Comparison is necessary to see the problem. During the same period, a certain Layer 2 ecosystem foundation invested $63.5 million in grants, while the operational team’s costs were only $2.1393 million. Even if we add a $50,000 KYC service fee, the total compensation for the three executives of the former is roughly the same as the entire operational cost of the latter — but the former’s funding volume is five times larger.

This comparison makes the alignment between executive salaries and actual output a bit awkward. Where the money is spent and how effective it is, the community can see very clearly.

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ChainMemeDealer

· 5h ago

Wow, this comparison is really amazing. With five times the capital, the operating costs are less than double? How did they manage to do that?

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainTherapist

· 5h ago

Hmm... This ratio is outrageous. 22% going into executive pockets is really unbelievable. --- Five times the release volume, one-tenth of the operating cost. This gap is not ordinary. --- Just looking at the numbers, you can sense something. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. --- So ultimately, it’s a transparency issue. If the ledger is laid out openly, it becomes clear. --- High executive compensation and contribution levels are so mismatched that it’s no wonder the community is becoming more indifferent. --- One spends money like water, the other is frugal—it's obvious who’s better. --- That’s why I don’t trust certain so-called "community-driven" foundations. Laugh. --- 3.87 million to support three people? My goodness, that’s definitely a big sin in a bear market.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationKing

· 5h ago

It's the same old story, when Bitcoin drops, everyone just panics and spends money recklessly. It's the same old trick, the funding looks substantial but in reality, most of it is eaten up by management. Executive compensation is even higher than the entire operational costs, truly incredible haha. The old structure is still there, with so much funding, but its usefulness is limited; the key is to see where it actually gets allocated. This gap is truly outrageous, it feels like some foundations are just shells used to support executives.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWhisperer

· 6h ago

Three senior executives took away 3.87 million in a year, and only invested 9.99 million. The operational efficiency is truly remarkable.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureCollector

· 6h ago

This is incredible. Executive compensation accounts for 22% of expenses? I had to count three times to believe it. --- Layer 2 takes six times the funding but only spends half the cost. Is the gap really that big... --- A dream built with 3.87 million, with 63.5 million in ecosystem funding. This ledger is quite magical. --- Wait, with a fivefold difference in funding, the operating costs are actually half of theirs? That's a bit outrageous. --- The most ruthless move in financial reports is to find a benchmark; the truth is instantly revealed. --- Where the money ultimately flows, the community's eyes are the sharpest. This time, everything is transparent. --- The executives are eating so well, what’s left for ecosystem financing... --- It's outrageous. A foundation can play itself like this—truly incredible.

View OriginalReply0