UNI destruction proposal voting, Lighter TGE expectations, overview of mainstream ecological trends

Release Date: December 19, 2025
Author: BlockBeats Editorial Team

In the past 24 hours, the crypto market has unfolded across multiple dimensions. The mainstream discussion has focused on the divergence in token issuance rhythm and buyback strategies of Perp DEX projects, as well as ongoing debates around the expected TGE timing of Lighter and whether Hyperliquid's buyback will squeeze long-term development. In terms of ecological development, the Solana ecosystem has seen real-world attempts at DePIN, while Ethereum is simultaneously advancing changes in DEX fee structures and upgrades to the AI protocol layer, with stablecoins and high-performance infrastructure accelerating their integration with traditional finance.

I. Mainstream Topics

1. UNI Burn Proposal Enters Final Voting: Governance Alignment or Narrative Repair?

The "Unification" proposal submitted by Uniswap founder Hayden Adams has entered the final governance voting stage, which will open on the evening of December 19 and last until December 25.

The proposal plans to burn 100 million UNI and simultaneously activate the fee switches for v2 and v3 mainnets (as well as Unichain fees), while achieving clearer legal alignment between Uniswap Labs and protocol governance through Wyoming's DUNA legal structure.

The controversy in the overseas community does not center on "whether to burn," but rather on the nature of governance itself: some voices question whether this is a carefully designed "governance optics," arguing that Labs is reasserting control over the agenda at a critical juncture, undermining the independence of the DAO; supporters emphasize its potential significance for MEV internalization and fee recirculation, viewing it as a necessary step for Uniswap towards a sustainable token economy.

Other more cautious viewpoints point out that Uniswap Labs has previously captured significant economic value, contrasting with protocols like Aave that are gradually returning income to the DAO, suggesting a rational assessment of this "historical burden" in governance adjustments. Overall, the proposal is seen as an important turning point in Uniswap's economic model, but it also exposes the ongoing blurring of boundaries between Labs and DAO in leading DeFi projects.

2. LIDO Valuation Debate Heats Up: The Governance Token Paradox of High TVL and Low Market Cap

As the largest liquid staking protocol on Ethereum, Lido currently holds about 25% market share, with a TVL exceeding $26 billion and an annual revenue of approximately $75 million, while its treasury stands at around $170 million. However, its governance token LDO has seen its market cap drop below $500 million, raising widespread questions within the community.

The focus of the discussion centers on a core question: does the governance token still have a reasonable valuation basis without dividends and the ability to directly capture cash flow?

Some viewpoints bluntly assert that LDO's intrinsic value is approaching zero, arguing that there is almost no direct correlation between protocol revenue and token holders; others attribute the continued price decline to the downward trend in ETH staking APR, intensified competition in the re-staking arena, and expectations of declining market share in the future.

More radical metaphors describe Lido as the "Linux of the crypto world," having high usage but lacking value recirculation. From a bullish perspective, the only variable repeatedly mentioned is the potential buyback mechanism that may be initiated in Q1 2026, as well as structural changes related to ETH ETFs following the v3 upgrade.

Overall, the debate highlights that Lido's TVL to market cap ratio has reached approximately 52:1, further underscoring the long-term misalignment between the "infrastructure status" and "value capture ability" of DeFi governance tokens.

3. CZ Amplifies Privacy Transfer Discussion: On-chain Transparency Becoming a Payment Barrier?

Binance founder CZ retweeted Ignas's post regarding privacy issues in crypto payments, pointing out that current on-chain transfers fully expose transaction histories, and in the short term, users can only temporarily evade tracking through centralized exchanges, which is clearly not a long-term solution. This retweet quickly ignited discussions, shifting the topic from "Is privacy important?" to "Are there already viable tools?" and evolving into a concentrated showcase of privacy solutions.

Many projects and supporters took the opportunity to recommend various solutions, including Railgun, Zcash, ZK-based stablecoin solutions, UTXO architecture chains, etc., emphasizing low-cost or native privacy advantages; some users humorously noted that under the current transparent ledger structure, buying a cup of coffee with cryptocurrency is almost equivalent to publicly disclosing one's entire asset status.

CZ's retweet further amplified the volume of discussion, spreading the topic from the technical circle to a broader audience of traders and payment users. Overall, this discussion once again highlights the increasingly prominent tension between fully transparent on-chain designs and real-world payment scenarios.

4. Validator Node Performance Debate: Data or Narrative?

The debate over the performance of Ethereum execution clients has continued to simmer over