#UNI代币销毁 At this moment in 2025, watching the UNI burn proposal pass with an overwhelming vote of 125,342,017 in favor to 742 against, what flashes through my mind is not joy, but a familiar sense of déjà vu in history.

Remember the ICO boom of 2017? At that time, everyone believed that tokens were inherently valuable, and token burning was seen as some kind of "scarcity magic." But what did we see later? Many projects continued to struggle even after burning tokens because they overlooked a fundamental issue: the mechanism of value capture itself is the key, and burning is just superficial.

The reason why the burning of 100 million UNI tokens made me pause is precisely because it’s different. Uniswap activated the fee switch mechanism simultaneously — this means the protocol finally begins to truly return cash flow to token holders. Burning is just a side dish; opening the protocol fee income is the main course. This reminds me of the Maple Finance story: the outstanding loans soared from nearly zero to $1.5 billion, driven by real interest income that fuels the ecosystem’s value.

Of course, I also saw the joke sparked by the 742 votes against. Someone joked, "DeFi governance is like elections in third-world countries," which is not without reason. The one-sided voting result itself warrants caution — what does it imply? Either there is genuine consensus, or participation is severely lacking. History has shown me that the most dangerous moments are often when everything seems most harmonious.

Looking back over the past two years, I see protocols catching up — from a lack of understanding of value capture to gradually refining mechanism design. Uniswap’s move is just a microcosm of the growing pains of the entire DeFi ecosystem. The question is, can this shift truly support the token price? Or are we replaying another cycle’s story? Time will tell.