【A Heart-to-Community Honest Talk】

Recently, there have been many discussions about proposal modifications (burning some tokens, redesigning the revenue distribution model). Some are excited, others have reservations. We want to speak frankly.

Why such "drastic" measures?

Look at most DAOs today — decision-making processes are painfully slow. By the time responses are gathered, market cycles are already over. We want to prove that decentralized organizations don’t have to sacrifice efficiency for security. The 48-hour rapid governance framework is an attempt in this direction. Additionally, the long-term value of tokens requires a more solid foundation, so we’ve put effort into burning tokens and adjusting distributions.

But the most sensitive issue, we haven’t hidden either.

It’s security. That 5-star rating in the CertiK audit report is honestly quite harsh. In our early stages, to iterate quickly and launch features, we indeed had gaps in code audit coverage. That’s a debt we owe, and it’s now our top priority. We are collaborating with multiple leading security agencies for comprehensive audits and code reinforcement, and will publish progress weekly.

How to balance "speed" and "security"?

The 48-hour framework will not be cut because it’s our core competitive advantage. But we will introduce a "Security Level Tag" mechanism. Each proposal will be automatically classified by risk level — parameter changes are low risk, moving funds or upgrading contracts are high risk. Low-risk proposals will go through a fast track, while high-risk ones will automatically trigger longer discussion periods and mandatory third-party audits. This combines the community’s "collective vigilance" with the system’s "mandatory safeguards."

This path has never been paved before; we are walking and refining as we go. Thanks to everyone for your support and questions. Continue to supervise us with your voting rights. Let’s write the future together.