Governance mechanics matter more than most realize. When a proposal requires skin-in-the-game voting—meaning you need to hold the token to participate—it creates genuine friction. That's not a bug; it's often a feature driving real demand.
Look at why certain tokens outperform: the lack of perpetual and spot market exposure on major exchanges actually works in their favor. Limited trading infrastructure means lower speculative noise and stronger price foundations. When there's nowhere easy to short or leverage trade, the token ecosystem tends to stabilize around committed holders rather than momentum traders. It's a counterintuitive edge in market structure.
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
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RektButSmiling
· 01-07 22:40
Haha, I like this logic. Without all that leverage trading garbage, I actually survive longer.
View OriginalReply0
ruggedNotShrugged
· 01-07 03:53
Isn't this logic reversed... restricting trading actually stabilizes the market? That just means poor liquidity, and claiming it as an advantage.
View OriginalReply0
StillBuyingTheDip
· 01-05 14:19
Hmm, this logic is really true. The setting that only hold tokens can vote can indeed filter people.
View OriginalReply0
VirtualRichDream
· 01-05 03:50
Wow, someone really understands. The voting system for holding tokens can indeed filter people out. Retail investors can't really play that game; only those who put real money in will take it seriously.
View OriginalReply0
AmateurDAOWatcher
· 01-05 03:50
Wow, this logic is reversed. Isn't having no leverage trading actually an advantage?
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotBot
· 01-05 03:48
Hmm, the skin-in-the-game approach indeed can filter out a lot of air speculators.
View OriginalReply0
consensus_whisperer
· 01-05 03:33
Got it, that's why some small coins are actually quite stable... If no one shorts, no one will randomly dump, simple and straightforward.
View OriginalReply0
LuckyHashValue
· 01-05 03:32
Really, the mechanism of holding tokens for voting has been underestimated. It directly filters out true believers, and retail investors (newbie investors) are automatically eliminated, which actually reduces community noise.
View OriginalReply0
CommunityJanitor
· 01-05 03:30
Wait, so the logic is that not having futures contracts is actually an advantage? Doesn't that mean most mainstream coins are committing suicide...
View OriginalReply0
TokenVelocity
· 01-05 03:24
Hmm, there's some logic to this... True hodlers are the real winners, while short-term traders have already been pushed out.
Governance mechanics matter more than most realize. When a proposal requires skin-in-the-game voting—meaning you need to hold the token to participate—it creates genuine friction. That's not a bug; it's often a feature driving real demand.
Look at why certain tokens outperform: the lack of perpetual and spot market exposure on major exchanges actually works in their favor. Limited trading infrastructure means lower speculative noise and stronger price foundations. When there's nowhere easy to short or leverage trade, the token ecosystem tends to stabilize around committed holders rather than momentum traders. It's a counterintuitive edge in market structure.