#UNI代币销毁 Seeing the approval of Uniswap's 100 million UNI burn proposal, I thought of a often overlooked question: what is the essence of token value recirculation?

Many people automatically associate burning with "supply reduction = price increase," but the actual situation is much more complex. The core of this proposal is not just burning, but activating fee switches and adjusting the reward structure for liquidity providers. This means the protocol is redefining the distribution of benefits among participants — reducing the Foundation's influence and increasing the rewards for those who genuinely contribute liquidity.

From a long-term perspective, this kind of change is more meaningful than simple supply-side operations. A healthy ecosystem should align participants' rewards with their contributions. Burning tokens is just an external form; the internal logic is the key to whether the project can sustain long-term growth.

But there's also a reminder: chasing after burning benefits when they appear to be good is often the easiest way to get caught in pitfalls. The market often prices in expectations before they are realized, and when it comes to actual implementation, it may instead lead to losses. Proper position management, staying vigilant, and not being driven by short-term emotions are the attitudes that prudent investors should have. Good project governance takes time to verify; what we need is patience, not gambler's luck.