Web3 老尘
Web3 老尘
2017年入圈，经历了各种起起伏伏活到了现在，不认命，但认输
36Following
85followers
Feed
Livestream
Feed
Studying UNI and LINK, I increasingly feel that one question is more important than revenue growth: where does the revenue ultimately go?
UNI has a mechanism where protocol fees are directed to token burn, while LINK has a mechanism converting service revenue into token reserves.
Both are trying to establish value capture paths, but having a mechanism doesn’t necessarily mean the effect is significant.
What’s truly worth tracking long-term is the actual execution volume and whether it harms the original business competitiveness.
In Aave's native BTC collateral proposal, there are several numbers worth noting:
The initial collateral cap is proposed to be set at 300 BTC, with a collateral factor of 78%.
There is also a threshold for income distribution: the first $500,000 of qualified income per year goes entirely to the Aave DAO. Only after exceeding this threshold does tiered distribution and partial fund use for token purchases come into play.
Currently, these are all proposal parameters, not income that has already been generated.
South Korea has postponed the crypto capital gains tax until 2029, with a tax rate of 22%. This is the fourth delay since 2020.
The policy has been repeatedly left hanging, reducing reporting pressure in the short term but also meaning the rules have yet to be implemented. Those holding crypto assets in South Korea or across borders should continue to keep records according to the current rules.
When researching infrastructure tokens, one area that is easy to overestimate is counting customer adoption directly as token demand.
I first distinguish whether it is testing, official launch, or ongoing paid usage. Even if there is revenue, it is necessary to confirm how the revenue enters the token economic system.
Between these stages, if any one lacks evidence, do not draw conclusions further.
The Flip voting results on PancakeSwap were somewhat surprising.
At the beginning of the vote, the opposition exceeded 98%. But after the vote ended on October 24, the official page showed 70.92% in favor and 29.08% against.
The proposal involves two major adjustments: increasing the LP fee share to 88% and reducing the daily CAKE issuance from 22,500 to 7,000.
Compared to simply reducing issuance, what I’m more interested in observing is whether PancakeSwap can gain enough liquidity and trading volume by giving more fees to LPs, and how much protocol value CAKE can ultimately capture.
PancakeSwap's recent The Flip proposal presents a contradiction worth examining.
On one hand, it plans to increase the LP fee share to 88%, while on the other, it intends to reduce the daily CAKE issuance from 22,500 to 7,000.
Reducing issuance is generally positive for token supply and demand, but since the transaction fee distribution is also being adjusted, some token holders worry that the actual burn amount might decrease instead.
This makes me more concerned about one question: how much value can a DEX ultimately leave to token holders when it gives up more income to attract liquidity?
The final voting results have not yet been independently confirmed, so the proposal should not be considered an implemented mechanism at this time.
The Korean won is the second most traded currency in the crypto world after the US dollar, but South Korea has not yet established a legal basis for issuing won stablecoins.
At the KBW event, there is already visible demand for stablecoins, and Chainlink and LG CNS are also promoting cooperation on won stablecoins.
Demand precedes regulation, and before the law is established, the compliance status of such stablecoins can change at any time.
On the day of the Kimi K3.1 Pro launch, the controversy was not about performance scores, but marketing.
X blogger Elshayib exposed a promotional document: it required cooperating KOLs to hide paid partnership labels, not to mark ads or sponsorships, and to use a unified script, such as "Kimi is just a 5 times cheaper open-source version of Opus 5.5." He refused to promote according to the template and openly criticized creators who used this script. Afterwards, someone privately messaged him to delete the comment, claiming "this will ruin the launch."
The Dark Side of the Moon has not responded so far, and the source remains at the blogger's disclosure level. However, hiding paid labels itself violates X's platform rules and FTC disclosure requirements. This is not a moral controversy, but a terms issue.
