#治理投票 Seeing Hyperliquid's move to burn 11% of the circulating supply, my mind automatically recalls the key moments of the past decade. I remember the crazy crypto boom of 2017, when many projects relied on inflation expectations to survive. We all know how that ended. In contrast, this time, 85% of staking weight supports the burn. This consensus figure is not astonishing but solid, indicating that major token holders share a unified view on this matter.

The key point is that the tokens being burned come from the aid fund system address, which is not an arbitrary disappearance but an on-chain governance action with traceable evidence. This reminds me of the hard fork decision made by the Ethereum community after the 2015 DAO incident. Back then, major decisions were made through voting consensus. Although controversial, it set a precedent—that significant economic decisions require community endorsement.

Hyperliquid uses a mechanism based on staking weight, essentially linking voting power with risk bearing. This is more equitable than a simple one-person-one-vote system. However, the 11% burn rate is indeed a critical turning point. Historically, Ethereum's EIP-1559 burn mechanism has proven effective in stabilizing expectations, but that was a passive burn. This time, it’s an active governance decision to burn, and the actual effect will depend on subsequent token economic performance.

What’s most worth observing is the participation and execution of this governance vote. The multiple governance votes by MakerDAO in 2019 taught us that high support alone is not enough; we also need to see whether the implementation can maintain this consensus. Now, it remains to be seen whether Hyperliquid can turn this burn into long-term ecosystem confidence rather than becoming just another short-term positive news.