The NEAR team pulled a big move: the community vote did not pass (only 45% approval, 67% needed), but they still slashed the annual inflation from 5% to 2.4%.

On the surface, this seems like a good thing – reducing the annual issuance by nearly 60 million coins, which eases inflation pressure. But the problem arises: the validator Chorus One directly criticized this, saying it "ignores the results of governance votes" and undermines the integrity of protocol management.

This is quite ironic—originally intended to let the community participate in decision-making through on-chain governance, but the core team simply said, "We still decide to do it this way," which completely undermined the voting rights. Some see this as pragmatism (inflation indeed needs to be controlled), while others believe it is an overreach of power.

What do you think, is the team's operation this time for the good of the project, or has it violated the bottom line of decentralization?