2026-01-02 11:21:46

At 2 a.m., I pressed that bright red oppose button. It wasn't a spur-of-the-moment impulse, but a carefully considered decision. As a long-term participant in the APRO protocol, when faced with this aggressive expansion proposal that claims to significantly enhance liquidity, I chose to say no.

The logic behind this decision is actually quite straightforward. APRO can stand out among numerous oracles and liquidity protocols in 2025 thanks to its unique certainty verification mechanism. This mechanism has stood the test of time and currently handles settlement for over $4.2 billion in BTC-backed assets. But what does Proposal 14 aim to do? Lower the node entry barrier, and expand nodes quickly to achieve short-term liquidity growth.

Sounds good, but the problem is—it's like relaxing filtration standards to increase tap water output. Seemingly clever, but actually a minefield. If APRO is to become a true hub in the Bitcoin Layer 2 ecosystem, its foundation must be solid. Now, pushing for aggressive expansion is like building upward before the foundation has hardened. Even a 0.01% risk on the $4.2 billion BTC assets could lead to unimaginable consequences.

We don't need false prosperity. The significance of Web3 governance lies in making those unpopular but necessary decisions.

BTC1,8%

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LidoStakeAddict

· 14h ago

Honestly, I buy this guy's logic. Putting $4.2 billion just like that, relaxing standards for short-term liquidity? Don't even think about it. --- Lowering the access threshold to improve liquidity is a classic case of drinking poison to quench thirst. The foundation isn't even stable, and they're building upwards—aren't they just asking for death? --- Pressing the oppose button at 2 a.m., you must be really worried to do that haha. But seriously, his water filtration analogy is spot on. --- Web3 governance is bound to have people saying unpleasant things. If APRO makes this move, we'll all be watching the drama unfold. --- The ones who calmly vote against are always right. The false prosperity ultimately ends up hurting us token holders. --- But I really want to see how Proposal 14 is finally voted... Feels like the community's opinions are probably very divided.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-3824aa38

· 14h ago

4.2 billion dollars are sitting there; who dares to tamper with the foundation? This guy's got a point. Lowering the threshold to exchange for liquidity? That's wishful thinking. Agreed, a short-term false prosperity is enough to ruin an ecosystem. This is what true DAO participants should be doing. Honestly, APRO is more stable without expansion in this wave. Every aggressive proposal follows the same套路, and in the end, retail investors are the ones who pay the price.

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLord

· 14h ago

Starting to dig wildly before the foundation is solid—this logic is truly brilliant... Can you gamble on a $4.2 billion matter?

View OriginalReply0

MetaNomad

· 14h ago

Honestly, this guy's vote was a bit hardcore... With $4.2 billion in BTC resting here, there's no way to just blindly expand. --- Opposing a proposal late at night? I have to give some credit for that mindset... Stability really beats short-term liquidity. --- Lowering node thresholds to increase liquidity sounds like you're damaging your own reputation... Even a 0.01% risk is enough to take a shot. --- Still pondering governance decisions at 2 a.m.? Now that's the kind of Web3 attitude we should have. --- I don't understand why it has to be so aggressive. Isn't it better to earn steadily? --- That analogy comparing it to water filtration is spot on. Basically, you can't sacrifice the foundation just for speed. --- APRO has lasted this long precisely because it's conservative enough... Looks like someone has caught on to that.

View OriginalReply0

DegenDreamer

· 14h ago

I'm the kind of person who would rather take it slow and avoid trouble, $4.2 billion... I really can't afford more turmoil. --- Proposal 14 is a typical case of drinking poison to quench thirst; the short-term data looks good but it's just an illusion. --- Well said, resisting the urge to expand is more difficult than anything else. --- This is the true attitude of a holder: not selling principles just for short-term gains. --- With a scale of $4.2 billion, they still go aggressive—are these people a bit out of touch? --- Agree or disagree, stability is a hundred times more important than growth rate. --- What Web3 lacks most is this kind of sober voice; most people only want to drive up prices.

View OriginalReply0