2025-12-25 07:23:10

Recently, the financial data of a leading DEX project has sparked heated discussion in the community. The foundation's financial report shows that the annual salaries of three core management personnel reached $3.87 million, while the entire ecosystem development annual allocation was only $10 million. In other words, for every $2.5 spent on development, $1 flows to the management team, which is indeed a somewhat uncomfortable ratio.

Comparing this to a foundation in the same sector with an expansion plan, their annual ecosystem investment reaches $63.5 million, with management costs only a little over $2 million. The efficiency comparison is clear.

This is not really a new issue. During the rapid development phase of DeFi projects, governance structures and fund allocations often lead to disputes. The key question is: Are these funds being spent effectively? Can the community effectively supervise and promote improvements?

From an investment perspective, don’t rush to cut losses just because of negative news. As a leading spot DEX, the project has deep liquidity and a large user base, and its fundamentals are unlikely to change in the short term. Short-term public opinion fluctuations are different from the project's long-term progress.

As a holder, it’s advisable to pay attention to subsequent community governance votes and reform movements, and express your stance through concrete actions. If you really have opinions about management salaries, community proposals are a good channel. Learning to read financial reports and governance proposals is essential to truly understand what you are investing in. The benefit of transparency is that issues can be openly discussed, which often helps push the project forward.

DEFI-5.56%

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
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

HashRateHustler

· 3h ago

3.87 million invested in management, only 10 million for the ecosystem? This ratio is outrageous, no wonder the community is exploding --- To put it simply, it's still a governance issue, the old tricks in the crypto project playbook --- Holding the leading position is undeniable, but such behavior looks uncomfortable no matter how you see it --- Compared to the neighboring expansion plan, it's directly a nade, over 2 million in management costs, workers are despairing --- Hold my advice, holders, don't panic and sell, community voting is the way to go, just push proposals and take them down --- Daily financial reports are transparent every day, but this is the result, I really laughed --- Who knows if the money was spent effectively? It depends on subsequent actions to speak --- It's common in the crypto world for management to take the big share; those without resolve have already run away --- The fundamentals won't move in the short term, but the public opinion heat needs to be cooled down first --- Actually, I just want to see if the community can truly restrain these people, otherwise, no matter how transparent it is, it's useless

View OriginalReply0

SmartContractPlumber

· 9h ago

This financial report data clearly has issues. The logic of permission allocation is completely reversed. Management costs should be a constraint within governance expenses and should not exceed 30% of ecological investment; otherwise, it becomes a re-entry vulnerability for rent-seeking power.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeDodger

· 9h ago

3.87 million invested in management, 10 million in ecosystem development. This ratio is truly outrageous. The neighboring project invested 63.5 million in the ecosystem but only spent a little over 2 million in costs. A direct comparison clearly shows where the difference lies.

View OriginalReply0

rugdoc.eth

· 10h ago

Management team compensation is indeed a tough pill to swallow, but the leading position is still there, and the fundamentals haven't collapsed. --- 3.87 million invested in management, 10 million in ecosystem development, this comparison can't be ignored. --- Basically, it depends on how the subsequent voting plays out. If there are issues, community proposals are necessary. --- Don't panic and sell off; focus on the fundamentals. Short-term public opinion fluctuations are normal. --- Compared to the neighboring ecosystem's 63.5 million investment, this gap... is a bit outrageous. --- Transparent financial reports are actually a good thing; at least issues can be openly discussed, which is a hundred times better than behind-the-scenes operations. --- As a holder, you need to learn how to read these data; otherwise, how can you know what you're actually investing in? --- Executives take the big share, while ecosystem investment shrinks. This pattern is too common in DeFi. --- The key is whether the money is actually spent effectively; efficiency is right there.

View OriginalReply0