#代币估值与上线 Hyper Foundation's burn vote this time brought back memories of that wave of projects from 2017. An 85% staking weight in favor of burning HYPE from the assistance fund actually reflects a kind of market maturity behind the numbers—a shift from the early days' "more tokens the better" mentality toward rational recognition of supply management.
I still remember those years when many projects rushed to mint tokens at launch, terrified of insufficient liquidity. What happened? Token values crashed to nothing, and investors got trapped hard. I've seen too many cases like this—from sky-high expectations to failed launches to complete degeneration into shitcoins. Back then, nobody really cared about inflation pressure; everyone was betting on the next batch of bag holders to take over.
Hyper's move here is actually correcting this old problem. Actively burning tokens, constraining supply—this was a decision nobody would have dared contemplate back then. From a market psychology perspective, it shows that both the project team and token holders are prioritizing long-term valuation over short-term speculation. The 8% abstentions and 7% opposition votes are worth noting too; they indicate consensus is still being built, but the direction is clear.
However, history tells us that burning itself is just the beginning of the story. The real key is the execution and market performance that follows. A token's valuation ultimately comes down to whether the project's actual application value can support it. Whether this move was the right chess piece depends on what time reveals.
#代币估值与上线 Hyper Foundation's burn vote this time brought back memories of that wave of projects from 2017. An 85% staking weight in favor of burning HYPE from the assistance fund actually reflects a kind of market maturity behind the numbers—a shift from the early days' "more tokens the better" mentality toward rational recognition of supply management.
I still remember those years when many projects rushed to mint tokens at launch, terrified of insufficient liquidity. What happened? Token values crashed to nothing, and investors got trapped hard. I've seen too many cases like this—from sky-high expectations to failed launches to complete degeneration into shitcoins. Back then, nobody really cared about inflation pressure; everyone was betting on the next batch of bag holders to take over.
Hyper's move here is actually correcting this old problem. Actively burning tokens, constraining supply—this was a decision nobody would have dared contemplate back then. From a market psychology perspective, it shows that both the project team and token holders are prioritizing long-term valuation over short-term speculation. The 8% abstentions and 7% opposition votes are worth noting too; they indicate consensus is still being built, but the direction is clear.
However, history tells us that burning itself is just the beginning of the story. The real key is the execution and market performance that follows. A token's valuation ultimately comes down to whether the project's actual application value can support it. Whether this move was the right chess piece depends on what time reveals.