2026-01-09 10:20:44

This move feels risky for the project's reputation. I get there might be a rationale behind it, but the logic just isn't clicking for me. The communication around this decision seems vague at best. Hoping there's a solid explanation that hasn't been shared yet—because right now, the messaging leaves a lot to be desired.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

StakeHouseDirector

· 01-09 10:51

This move is really outrageous, it feels like digging a hole for yourself to fall into.

View OriginalReply0

Blockchainiac

· 01-09 10:42

Communication really sucks, talking is the same as not talking.

View OriginalReply0

EthSandwichHero

· 01-09 10:39

Communication is indeed lacking; it feels like the project team just doesn't want to explain things clearly.

View OriginalReply0

ChainSherlockGirl

· 01-09 10:24

Hmm, this operation really has a bit of a "suicide public relations" vibe... With such convoluted communication, I actually want to track down who is making the decisions behind the scenes. Based on my analysis, this kind of vague and evasive approach is usually an attempt to muddle through. Turning around to look at on-chain data, wallet addresses don't lie. To be continued...

View OriginalReply0

NFTArtisanHQ

· 01-09 10:23

ngl the communication vacuum here is basically asking us to fill in the blanks ourselves... and that's never a good look for any project trying to build trust tbh

Reply0