When first hearing about a shiny new token, one of the first things most people do is go to coingecko, check the price, look at the market cap, and glance towards the elephant in the room, the big number: FDV, or “Fully-Diluted Value”. The degen in all of us sees a high FDV (in the 10–11 figure range) and immediately assumes that upside is limited, there’s little upwards price potential, and we’re too late. But is there more to the narrative?

当第一次听到闪亮的新代币时，大多数人做的第一件事就是去 coingecko查看价格，查看市值，然后看向房间里的大象——那个大数字： FDV，即“完全稀释后市值”。我们所有人都看到了高 FDV（在 10-11 个数位范围内），并立即假设上行空间有限，价格上涨潜力很小，我们为时已晚。但是还有更多的信息吗？

(Although this post applies to all projects in crypto generally, at the end of this post, UXD protocol introduces a burn proposal to help with the narrative of high FDV/low float projects. Skip to the end section if you only wish to see this.)

（虽然这篇文章一般适用于所有加密项目，但在这篇文章的最后，UXD 协议引入了一个销毁提案，来帮助阐述高 FDV/低流通项目。如果您只想看这部分，请跳到最后部分。）

两种思想的故事 (A Tale of Two Minds)

Plato famously divided the soul into three parts: the rational soul, the desiring soul, and the spirited soul. In short, these parts of the soul were responsible for rational thinking, fundamental cravings/desires (food, water, etc), and love for victory and honour.

柏拉图将灵魂分为三部分的叙述非常著名：理性的灵魂、欲望的灵魂和意气的灵魂。简而言之，灵魂的这些部分负责理性思考、基本的渴望/欲望（食物、水等），以及对胜利和荣誉的热爱。

2500 years later, and we can aptly replace “soul” with “mind” for most purposes, and “victory and honour” with “money, social status, and 9-figure APYs”. Doing so gets us pretty close to the internal mental conflict of many crypto traders.

2500 年后，在大多数情况下，我们可以恰当地将“灵魂”替换为“思想”，将“胜利和荣誉”替换为“金钱、社会地位和 9 位数的 APY”。这样做让我们非常接近许多加密交易者的内部心理冲突。

FDV is a curious metric because of how it interacts with the rational and spirited minds of the crypto trader, sometimes in quite subtle ways. The goal of this post is to really pull the cover back on FDV, describe why it matters, why it doesn’t and how it is so incredibly misunderstood.

FDV 是一个奇怪的指标，因为它如何与加密交易者的理性和意气的头脑相互作用，（甚至）有时以非常微妙的方式。这篇文章的目的是真正揭开 FDV 的面纱，描述它为何重要，又为何不重要，以及它是如何被如此令人难以置信地误解的。

理性思维 (The Rational Mind)

Let’s start with a first-order rational description of FDV.

让我们从 FDV 的一阶理性描述开始。

Definitionally, Fully-Diluted Value is the Market Price of a token times its Max Possible Supply. This means, Fully-Diluted Value represents what the Market Capitalization would be if all tokens that are ever allowed to be issued by the protocol, were in fact issued, and they traded at the exact price they do today.

从定义上讲，完全稀释后市值是代币的市场价格乘以它的最大可能供应量。这意味着，完全稀释后市值代表市值将是 如果协议允许发行的所有代币实际上都已发行，并且它们以今天的确切价格交易。

Taking UXP as an example, the token currently trades at a price of ~$0.07 at the time of writing. There are 10 billion total tokens that can possibly be issued by the protocol, giving an FDV of (10 billion)($0.07) = $700 million.

以 UXP 为例，在撰写本文时，代币目前的交易价格约为 0.07 美元。该协议可能发行的代币总数为 100 亿个，FDV 为 (100 亿)(0.07 美元) = 7 亿美元。

Already this logic has introduced two pieces that need to be evaluated:
这个逻辑已经引入了两个需要评估的部分：

• Tokens allowed to be issued by the protocol
  协议允许发行的代币
• Tokens trading at the exact price they do today
  代币以他们今天的确切价格交易

Let’s start with the first. The concept of “tokens allowed to be issued by the protocol” might be one of the biggest red herrings in all of crypto, because in itself it is not a terribly informative number. This is the argument against FDV, in itself mattering, because it requires additional context. Most notably, the inflation schedule for a protocol is far more important than its FDV. Why? Consider the following two protocols:

让我们从第一个开始。 “允许协议发行的代币”这一概念可能是所有加密货币中最大的红鲱鱼之一，因为它本身并不是一个非常有用的数字。这是一个反对 FDV 的论点，本身很重要，不过它需要额外的语境（来配合解读）。最值得注意的是，协议的 通胀时间表远比其 FDV 重要。 为什么？考虑以下两个协议：

• Protocol A has an FDV of $200mm. Its current market cap is $10mm (meaning 5% of the token has been issued). Protocol A plans to issue the remaining 95% of tokens over the next 95 days, and perhaps this plan is unknown to Token holders. Even if it is known, token holders watch their ownership % of floating token supply get diluted by a factor of 20x over this few month period and would have to impute price impacts over that period.

  协议 A 的 FDV 为 200 万亿。它目前的市值是 10 万亿（意味着 5% 的代币已经发行）。协议 A 计划在未来 95 天内发行剩余的 95% 的代币，而代币持有者可能不知道这个计划。即使已知，代币持有者也会看到他们的流通代币供应的所有权百分比在这几个月内被稀释了 20 倍，并且必须估算在此期间的价格影响。

• Protocol B has an uncapped supply. Its FDV is therefore infinite. But, Protocol B has controls in place to guarantee that its inflation schedule is 5% per year for the next 100 years. Token holders know from day 1 how much their ownership % will be diluted over time and can plan accordingly.

  协议 B 的供应量没有上限。因此，它的 FDV 是无限的。但是，协议 B 有适当的控制措施，以保证其未来 100 年的通货膨胀率是每年 5%。代币持有者从第一天起就知道他们的所有权百分比会随着时间的推移而被稀释，并可以做出相应的计划。

In the above examples, the concern isn’t with the FDV per se it’s with the rate of dilution. Another example shows that FDV is much less important than the probability that such tokens are ever issued. Consider the following two protocols:

在上面的例子中，关注的不是 各自的 FDV ，而是稀释率。另一个例子表明，FDV 远不如 此类代币的发行概率重要。 再考虑以下两个协议：

• Protocol A has a high FDV, and 20% of the Max Possible Supply floats on the market. The protocol details a smart-contract guaranteed plan for issuing 80% of the Max Possible Supply over the next 4 years, so there’s a 100% probability that the supply reaches its cap in 4 years’ time.

  协议 A 的 FDV 很高，20% 的最大可能供应量在市场上流通。该协议详细说明了一个智能合约保证计划，用于在未来 4 年内发行 80% 的最大可能供应量，因此供应量在 4 年内达到其上限的概率为 100%。

• Protocol B has the same high FDV, and 20% float. The 80% remaining are in a DAO treasury and can only be spent by the approval of existing token holders. This control fact alone significantly decreases the probability that many of these tokens ever see the light of day, as token holders are unlikely to dilute themselves unless there is a good reason to do so.

  协议 B 具有相同的高 FDV 和 20% 的流通。剩余的 80% 存放在 DAO 的金库中，只能在现有代币持有者的批准下使用。仅这一控制事实就显着降低了其中许多代币出现的可能性，因为代币持有者不太可能稀释自己，除非有充分的理由这样做。

A token with a low probability of being issued can be thought of as less dilutive than a token with 100% probability of being issued. The result is that the marginal token in the second case really should “contribute less” to the FDV than the marginal token in the first case. This example also highlights that the mechanism through which new tokens are issued (fixed inflation schedule vs DAO governance) tends to change this probability.

发行概率低的代币可以被认为比发行概率为 100% 的代币稀释性更小。 结果是第二种情况下的边际代币确实应该比第一种情况下的边际代币 “贡献更少”的FDV。这个例子还强调了 发行新代币的机制（固定通胀时间表与 DAO 治理）往往会改变这种概率。

Ok, so what do we have so far? The above logic implies that there are clear cases in which FDV alone is not the most important metric for understanding dilution/issuance mechanics, and understanding the inflation/emission schedule and the probability of those emissions is altogether more important for understanding the concept of “Tokens allowed to be issued by the protocol”, which was part 1 of our FDV definition.

好的，那么到目前为止我们有什么？上述逻辑表明，在某些明确的情况下，FDV 本身并不是理解稀释/发行机制的最重要指标，而理解通货膨胀/发行时间表和这些(代币)释放的概率对于理解“允许协议发行的代币”这一概念更为重要，这是我们 FDV 定义的第 1 部分。

It’s also worth contextualizing “Tokens allowed to be issued by the protocol” with the concept of “Authorized Shares” from traditional finance (only in concept, not in legal status!). Authorized shares are the number of equity shares a company is legally allowed to issue pursuant to its legal documents. Replace “equity shares” with “tokens” and “legal documents” with “smart contracts”, and this becomes the “Tokens allowed to be issued by the protocol”. FDV is a concept unique to crypto, and traditional equity markets give almost zero merit to the concept of Authorized Shares.

把“协议允许发行的代币”与来自传统金融的“授权份额”（仅在概念上，而不是在法律上！）放在适当的语境中来理解，也是很值得的。授权股份是公司根据其法律文件合法允许发行的股份数量。将“股权”替换为“代币”，将“法律文件”替换为“智能合约”，这成为“协议允许发行的代币”。 FDV 是加密货币独有的概念，传统股票/权益市场对授权股份概念的评价几乎是“没有价值”。

Why don’t equity markets care? Because of the two factors discussed above. 1. traditional management (protocol team) provides “forward guidance” (medium posts, tweets) on how many Authorized Shares will become outstanding each year, which gives some certainty around inflation/issuance schedules. Moreover, equity markets view the probability that all Authorized Shares are ever issued to be quite low, they’re just there if needed. And, as discussed later in this article, there is a trust assumption around traditional equity management teams, making this forward guidance on share issuance credible.

为什么股市不关心？主要由于上面讨论的两个因素。 1. 传统管理层（协议团队）提供关于每年将有多少授权股票发行在外的“前瞻性指导”（medium帖子、推文），这为通胀/发行时间表提供了一定的确定性。此外，股票市场认为所有授权份额再发行的可能性非常低，它们只是在需要时出现。而且，正如本文后面讨论的那样，传统股权管理团队存在信任假设，因此对股票发行的前瞻性指导是 可信的。

Moving to the second point: “Tokens trading at the exact same price they do today”. What determines price today? At any given point, a token price is a simple balancing of supply and demand. By definition, at the current token price, supply=demand=market cap. FDV makes the insane assumption that we can perfectly scale up supply and demand by a constant factor, i.e. each token issued is met by the demand to buy that token at the current market price.

现在，转到第二点：“代币以与今天完全相同的价格交易”。什么决定了今天的价格？在任何给定点，代币价格都是供需的简单平衡。根据定义，以当前代币价格，供应=需求=市值。 FDV 做了一个疯狂的假设，即我们可以通过一个常数因子完美地扩大供需，即每个发行的代币都满足以当前市场价格购买该代币的需求。

But, no one can reasonably predict the supply/demand dynamics in the next hour in the crypto world, let alone in several years (the point at which many projects will hit their Max Possible Supply). Pretending that you can predict this far into the future, the Rational Mind says, is anything but rational. Demand will increase/decrease depending on crypto market sentiment, the progress of the protocol, new product offerings, competitors, etc. It’s impossible to equilibrate today what will happen tomorrow.

但是，没有人能够合理地预测加密世界下一小时的供需动态，更不用说几年后（许多项目将达到其最大可能供应量的时间点）。 理性的思维 声称的，假设你可以预测到很远的未来，然而这绝不是理性的。需求将根据加密市场情绪、协议进展、新产品供应、竞争对手等而增加/减少。今天不可能取平衡明天会发生什么。

However, there is something useful to be gleaned from the FDV from a supply/demand perspective: FDV gives a lower bound on what demand must eventually be at the Max Possible Supply in order to keep price constant. If demand for each incremental token is projected to decrease, then the eventual market cap will be less than today’s FDV. It is therefore rational for a protocol to only issue tokens as demand concurrently increases.

但是，从供给/需求的角度来看，从 FDV 中（还是能）收集到一些有用的信息：FDV 给出了为了保持价格不变，需求最终必须达到最大可能供应的下限。如果预计每个增量代币的需求会减少，那么最终的市值将低于今天的 FDV。因此，协议仅在需求同时增加时才发行代币是合理的。

In summary, the Rational Mind has told us that FDV is a rather incomplete metric, traditional equity markets don’t care about such a concept at all, and it’s irrational to try to project demand into the future. Does that mean FDV is wholly worthless? Not quite.

总之，理性思维告诉我们FDV是一个相当不完整的指标，传统的股票市场根本不关心这个概念，试图将需求预测到未来是不合理的。这是否意味着 FDV 完全没有价值？那也未必。

意气思维 (The Spirited Mind)

Keynes was one of the 20th century’s greatest economic minds, having written The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money and laying the groundwork for modern macroeconomics. (Many people reading will be familiar with the below concept, but it’s included in this article for completeness!) In chapter 12, Keynes uses an analogy to help explain the psychological component of equity market prices:

凯恩斯是 20 世纪最伟大的经济思想家之一，他撰写了《就业、利息和货币通论》，为现代宏观经济学奠定了基础。 （很多人阅读后会熟悉以下概念，但为了完整起见，将其包含在本文中！）在第 12 章中，凯恩斯使用了一个类比来帮助解释股票市场价格的心理成分：

Suppose a newspaper puts out a “beauty contest”, and prints pictures of one hundred individuals, and asks individuals to chose the top six most beautiful people. The answers will all be tallied, and whoever chooses the top six people correctly (as voted on by others’ choices for the top six), will receive a prize.

假设一家报纸举办了一场“选美比赛”，打印了一百个人的照片，并要求个人选出前六名最漂亮的人。答案将全部统计，谁正确选择了前六名（由其他人投票选出的前六名），将获得奖品。

If you were entering such a contest, the first thought would be to pick the six people you find most beautiful. Now a moment’s thought may reveal that just because you find someone beautiful doesn’t mean the average respondent will too. A second order thought process would be to pick the six people that you think the average respondent will find the most beautiful. But the rational thought doesn’t stop there. As Keynes puts it: “It is not a case of choosing those [faces] that, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.”

如果你参加这样的比赛，第一个想法是 选出你认为最漂亮的六个人。 电光火石之间，你发现你认为的“漂亮”并不是大众认为的“漂亮”。第二个思考过程就会是 选择你认为普通受访者会认为最漂亮的六个人。 但理性思考并不止于此。正如凯恩斯所说：“这不是选择那些根据个人的最佳判断确实最漂亮的[面孔]，甚至不是那些普通意见真正认为最漂亮的人。我们已经达到了第三级，我们将我们的智慧投入到 预测平均意见期望的平均意见是什么。 而且我相信有些人在实践第四、第五和更高的程度。”

In actuality, the game becomes guessing what you think other people will think that other people will guess. In essence, each of these degrees are a distinct style of investing. Value investing a la Ben Graham practices the first order, “pick what you like”. Casual stock investors and people with the ability to perceive trends often follow the second order. Professional equity traders and crypto, with its (3,3) game theory, ponzinomics, and other absurd mechanisms are the most akin to the third degree.

实际上，游戏变成了猜测你认为别人会认为别人会猜到的东西。 本质上，这些维度中的每一个都是一种独特的投资风格。 价值投资-本格雷厄姆 练习第一个维度，“选择你喜欢的东西”。散户投资者和有能力感知趋势的人通常遵循第二个维度。专业的股票交易员和加密货币，因其 (3,3) 博弈论、庞氏经济学和其他荒谬的机制最类似于第三个维度。

What does this have to do with FDV? FDV is a reliable metric insomuch as the average person believes that the average person will think FDV is a metric of primary importance. If everyone believes FDV is a useful/important metric, the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling and its importance is forced into existence. I doubt anyone can mention a project without hearing someone reference its FDV, and so FDV has taken on the importance that, regardless of one’s personal opinion of FDV, there is consensus that there is consensus about its usefulness. It seems that this is the cause of much of the “FDV is a meme vs FDV is incredibly important debate”. Both things can be simultaneously true. High FDV may not matter to the Rational Mind, but if it matters to the Spirited Mind, it matters.

这与FDV有什么关系？ FDV 是一个可靠的指标，因为 一般人认为一般人会认为 FDV 是一个最重要的指标。 如果每个人都认为 FDV 是一个有用/重要的指标，那么这个预言就会自我实现并且它的重要性就被迫存在。我怀疑任何人都能在没有听到别人提到它FDV 的情况下提及一个项目，因此 FDV 的重要性在于，无论个人对 FDV 的看法如何，人们就其有用性达成共识。 似乎这是“FDV 是模因 vs FDV 是非常重要的辩论”的大部分原因。 这两件事可以同时为真。 高 FDV 对理性思维可能无关紧要，但如果它对意气思维很重要，那就很重要。

It’s worth noting that these sort of “contradictory” metrics can be found in traditional finance as well, with metrics as fundamental as EV/EBITDA or Price/Sales sometimes being reduced to absurdity on a Rational Mind basis, but still very much mattering on a Spirited Mind basis.

值得注意的是，这些“矛盾”指标也可以在传统金融中找到，其基本指标如 EV/EBITDA 或 [价格/销售额](https://www.oldschoolvalue.com/investing-strategy/useless -stock-metrics/) 有时在理性思维的基础上被简化为荒谬，但在意气的基础上仍然非常重要。

The other primary effect of FDV on the Spirited Mind is the strong anchoring effect. Most people are familiar with the idea, but still susceptible to it anyways. Once the mind becomes familiar with a certain number or set of reference numbers, related numbers are understood in the context of those numbers, even if the comparison is not as relevant. For example, two Protocols with the same FDV will immediately experience some sort of equivalence in the mind of users/traders, without paying attention to any of the rational factors listed earlier. This is natural, and takes almost superhuman discipline to prevent the visceral reaction. Moreover, returning to the previous argument, if everyone believes that everyone strongly experiences anchoring, then the effect of anchoring will become much more prevalent regarding trading decisions.

FDV 对意气思维的另一个主要影响是强大的锚定效应。大多数人都熟悉这个想法，但仍然容易受到它的影响。一旦头脑熟悉了某个数字或一组参考数字，相关数字就会在这些数字的语境中被理解，即使这种比较其实不那么相关。例如，具有相同 FDV 的两个协议将立即在用户/交易者的脑海中体验到某种等效性，而无需注意前面列出的任何合理因素。这是自然的，并且需要几乎超人的纪律来防止本能反应。此外，回到前面的论点，如果每个人都认为所有人都强烈地体验锚定(效果)，那么锚定的效果将在交易决策中变得更加普遍。

信任和灵活性 (Trust & Flexibility)

The other unspoken component of FDV at the intersection of the Rational and Spirited Minds is Trust. One of the reasons people do not like high FDV/low float is due to the introduction of a trust assumption, in a world of a decentralized trustless mantra. On the second point from earlier about the probability of issuance of tokens, said probability is directly proportional to the trust of the underlying DAO/team. In the case of AAPL stock, the equity markets have a high level of trust in AAPL management being forthright in their communication, and so are able to discount issuance tail events to zero. In the case of ten anons running a crypto protocol, the trust assumption is rightfully much, much lower. No matter how communicative or trustworthy said anons/DAO might seem, there’s a trust assumption and that (rightfully so) makes crypto veterans uneasy.

在理性和意气思维的交汇处，FDV另一个并未严明言的组成部分是信任。 人们不喜欢高 FDV/低流通量的原因之一是在去中心化和去信任化咒语的世界中引入了信任假设。 关于前面关于代币发行概率的第二点，所述概率与底层 DAO/团队的信任度成正比。就苹果股票而言，股票市场高度信任苹果管理层在沟通中的直率，因此能够将发行尾部事件折扣为零。在十个匿名者运行加密协议的情况下，信任假设理所当然地要低得多。无论匿名者/DAO 看起来多么善于交流或值得信赖，都有一个信任假设，并且（理所当然地）让加密货币老手感到不安。

However, the other side of the coin here is Flexibility. In many cases, Flexibility or autonomy is synonymous with introducing a trust assumption. The thing that makes people uneasy is the “fact that the team/DAO can do whatever they want with the to-be-issued supply”, but the point of the setup to begin with often is that “the team/DAO can do whatever they want with the to-be-issued supply”, i.e. there’s flexibility to adapt to new opportunities, new market conditions, and new productive uses for the token. In some sense, FDV/float represents the “degree of tightness” of the handcuffs on the team/DAO. If this ratio is 1, then there is no trust assumption, but also no flexibility. If the ratio is large, there is a massive trust assumption, but also tons of flexibility. The right answer is probably somewhere in between.

然而，硬币的另一面是灵活性。在许多情况下，灵活性或自主性是引入信任假设的同义词。让人不安的是“团队/DAO 可以对即将发行的供应做任何他们想做的事情”，但设置的重点往往是“团队/DAO 可以对他们想要将要发行的供应”做任何事情，即可以灵活地适应新的机会、新的市场条件和代币的新生产用途。 从某种意义上说，FDV/float代表了团队/DAO手铐的“松紧程度”。如果这个比率是 1，那么就没有信任假设，也没有灵活性。如果比率很大，则存在巨大的信任假设，但也有大量的灵活性。正确的答案可能介于两者之间。

结论 (Concluding Thoughts)

In summary, FDV is a fickle beast. The Rational arguments probably fall in favor of it not being terribly important, but the Spirited arguments to its importance are no less valid. The Solana ecosystem in particular is grappling with issues of high FDV/low float projects as we speak, and projects need to be communicative about their tokenomics moving forward.

总之，FDV是一只善变的野兽。理性论点可能倾向于认为它不是非常重要，但意气论点对其重要性同样有效。正如我们所说，尤其是 Solana 生态系统正在努力解决高 FDV/低流通项目的问题，并且项目需要就其代币经济学的发展进行沟通。

Everyone has seen the widely circulated Solana ecosystem starter pack:

大家都看过的，广为流传的 Solana 生态系统入门包：

Returning to the first component of the definition of FDV: “Tokens allowed to be issued by the protocol”, as well as the “Trust & Flexibility” discussion, UXD Protocol believes that projects need to tighten their handcuffs and either partake in token burns or offer binding inflation schedules to help remedy the effects of high FDV/low float.

回到 FDV 定义的第一部分：“允许由协议发行的代币”，以及“信任和灵活性”的讨论，UXD 协议认为项目需要收紧手铐，要么参与  token burns  或提供具有约束力的通胀时间表，以帮助弥补高 FDV/低流通的影响。_

UXD 销毁提案 (UXD Burn Proposal)

UXD Protocol believes that the best way for UXD specifically to lower the implicit trust assumptions and create a more sustainable ownership structure longer term is to introduce a UXP gov token burn. UXD Protocol wants to be completely transparent about the implications of a burn proposal, and so includes effects on ownership of the protocol, etc below. With that in mind, UXD Protocol intends to introduce the following burn proposal some time in the next few months.

UXD 协议认为，对于 UXD 来说，降低隐含信任假设并创建长期更可持续所有权结构的最佳方法是引入UXP治理代币销毁。 UXD 协议希望对销毁提案的影响完全透明，因此包括对协议所有权的影响等。考虑到这一点，UXD 协议打算在未来几个月的某个时间推出以下销毁提案。

提案 (Proposal)

• Burn 30% of UXP Governance Token Max Possible Supply, or 3 billion (3,000,000,000 UXP Tokens).
  销毁 UXP 治理代币最大可能供应量的30%，即 30 亿（3,000,000,000 个 UXP 代币）。

• Burned Tokens will come from “Community Fund” which currently holds 57% of UXP Governance Token Max Possible Supply, or 5.7 billion (5,700,000,000 UXP Tokens).
  销毁的代币将来自“社区基金”，该基金目前持有 57% 的 UXP 治理代币最大可能供应量，即 57 亿（5,700,000,000 个 UXP 代币）。

• Institutional UXP Governance Token Holders (such as Multicoin Capital) will be asked not to vote on such a proposal.
  机构 UXP 治理代币持有者（例如 Multicoin Capital）将被要求不对此类提案进行投票。

• UXP Core Team members will not vote on such a proposal.
  UXP 核心团队成员不会对此类提案进行投票。

• Staked UXP Tokens will be able to vote on the proposal (details to follow).
  质押的 UXP 代币将能够对提案进行投票（详情如下）。

• Definitionally, this burn would increase the % ownership of all current UXP holders by ~43%, this includes all current holders, Team, Investors, Treasury, Token Sale, and any other UXP Gov token holders (staking rewards holders, discounted bond sale holders, etc).
  从定义上讲，此次销毁将使所有当前 UXP 持有者的所有权百分比增加 ~43%， 这包括所有当前持有者、团队、投资者、财政部、代币销售和任何其他 UXP Gov 代币持有者（质押奖励持有人、贴现债券销售持有人等）。

As a reminder, UXP Governance Token distribution is currently as follows:
提醒一下，UXP代币分配目前如下：

Post burn proposal, the allocations would be as follows:
销毁提案后，分配如下：

Because this proposal will only be voted on by the community (non-core team, non-investors to the extent such investors comply), it will only pass if the community agrees that the pros (more sustainable tokenomics) outweigh the potential cons (higher ownership percentage for all current holders, including team + investors). Most burn proposals fall subject to this con, as it is nearly impossible to renegotiate investor + team legal contracts post facto. If the community does not wish to go ahead with the proposal, UXD Protocol will propose a restricted inflation schedule in order to “tighten” the token issuance handcuffs.

因为此提案将仅由社区（非核心团队、非机构投资者）投票，因此只有在社区同意优点（更可持续的代币经济学）大于潜在的缺点时才会通过（所有当前持有者的所有权百分比更高，包括团队 + 投资者）。 大多数销毁提案都受此限制，因为事后重新谈判投资者 + 团队法律合同几乎是不可能的。如果社区不希望继续该提案，UXD 协议将提出一个限制通胀时间表，以“收紧”代币发行的手铐。

Cheers!
干杯!

Disclaimer: _UXD Protocol does not consider UXP Governance Token as a security or other “investment contract”, and nothing in the above article should be taken as investment advice. Any comparisons to equity contracts or other investable securities are for illustrative purposes of analogy only and do not indicate any further relation to said equity contracts or other investable securities. The intent of the burn proposal is not related to any form of investment returns.

免责声明： UXD协议不将UXP治理代币视为证券或其他“投资合约”，以上文章中的任何内容均不应视为投资建议。与股权合同或其他可投资证券的任何比较仅用于说明类比的目的，并不表明与所述股权合同或其他可投资证券有任何进一步的关系。销毁提案的意图与任何形式的投资回报无关。