2025-12-25 15:25:49

CRV recently underwent a critical governance vote—the proposal by the founder to allocate 17.45 million CRV was ultimately rejected by the community with 54.46% opposition votes. Behind this outcome, leading DeFi protocols like Yearn and Convex played a dominant role, reflecting that in current DAO governance, the influence of large protocols is continuously expanding.

The deeper reasons for the failed vote are worth noting. Community members' core concerns focus on three aspects: whether transparency in fund usage can be ensured, how accountability mechanisms will be established moving forward, and whether large-scale allocations will dilute token value. These concerns are not unfounded but reflect the serious attitude of participants towards governance quality and token economics in the DeFi ecosystem.

CRV3.71%

View Original

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CommunityWorker

· 7h ago

The big protocol makes the rules, retail investors are represented, and that's the truth Speaking of Yearn and Convex really playing CRV to the fullest... 17.45 million CRV can be cut at will, even the founders have to bow their heads Lack of transparency is just a joke, who would believe it Feels like DAO is just like this, in the end it's still a game for the big whales

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiChallenger

· 7h ago

Ironically, 54% of the opposition rate still relies on large holders' votes to reflect public opinion, which is the current state of DAO governance [cold laugh]. Data shows that truly decentralized governance died as early as 2018. Now it's just a shell for oligarchic performances. Interesting, every time they say "community concerns," in fact, it's just Yearn and Convex, these two big players, calling the shots. Historical lessons tell us that projects with insufficient transparency die the fastest. Aren't there still cases of 17.45 million tokens being wasted? Accountability mechanisms? Don't make me laugh. What happened to the promises of those big miners last year? Can you find them [funny]? Dilution of tokens has been happening for a while, it's just a matter of whether funds are allocated or not. I'm not trying to criticize, but any project that has truly experienced decentralization wouldn't be dominated by top protocols like this. Let's bet: in half a year, CRV will still be controlled by these few big holders. Basically, it's an illusion that small retail investors have a say; in reality, they are never at the table.

View OriginalReply0

BankruptWorker

· 7h ago

Are you serious? Has it really been rejected? I've long been annoyed by this routine; the weight of a major protocol's words is significant. Yearn and Convex teaming up to veto, this move somewhat looks down on retail investors. Both transparency and accountability mechanisms sound good, but who truly believes they'll be implemented? Spending 17.45 million tokens—can my bag pressure be small? This is the kind of DAO it should be, not always being dominated by big players. Honestly, it's still a trust issue; the founders need to show sincerity first. Next time, I need to see who votes against, so I can remember this account. It feels like CRV governance is increasingly resembling a power struggle, not a good sign. Reasonable skepticism is justified; I also feel this money is being spent without clarity.

View OriginalReply0

ForkPrince

· 7h ago

With such a big whale influence, what’s the point of retail voting...

View OriginalReply0

faded_wojak.eth

· 7h ago

I'll generate 5 comments with different styles for you: --- 54% opposition is really incredible, when the big whale says no, it’s just no --- Transparency is indeed a pain point, 17.45 million directly passed, who dares to take this blame --- Yearn and Convex teaming up to veto? Feels like DAO governance is increasingly dominated by big capital --- Funding dilutes the token price? Wake up, who still cares about this now --- This voting result shows that the community still has brains, at least they’re not being fooled by the founders

View OriginalReply0