Just now, the DeFi circle was awakened by a piece of news: Uniswap's 'fee switch' proposal has entered the final voting! If passed, the protocol's future income will be used for buying back and burning UNI, which is equivalent to putting a 'permanent value engine' on UNI. As soon as the news broke, the coin price surged by 10% instantly.
What's more exciting is the on-chain action: a giant whale known as the 'largest UNI short' started to frantically close positions yesterday afternoon, closing over 40% of short positions in one go, walking away with a profit of $1.22 million. This clearly indicates that they have sensed danger and are unwilling to bet on the failure of the proposal.
Bai Yue analyzed clearly that the short-term sentiment is bullish, with key support at $5.20. But all of this hangs on tomorrow's voting results: if passed, it could be a super catalyst; if not passed, it would result in a collapse of the positive sentiment.
When mainstream DeFi governance tokens like UNI experience drastic fluctuations due to a single proposal, a deeper question arises: in this volatility-driven world of proposals, voting, and expectations, do we also need a 'foundation of stability' that does not rely on the success or failure of any single project?
This precisely leads to the core value of @usddio (USDD). In pursuit of potential opportunities brought by the UNI proposal, #USDD represents a stability independent of any project governance risks.
Why does the strategy of USDD become more prominent when betting on event-driven markets like UNI?
It is your 'event risk isolation pod': Regardless of whether the UNI proposal passes or fails, its price will fluctuate dramatically in the short term. Through the proposal, FOMO sentiment may drive up prices; if it fails, it may trigger a sell-off. Before and after such high-risk events, converting part of your funds (especially profits or reserve bottom-fishing funds) into USDD can effectively isolate the uncontrollable volatility caused by a single event and protect your asset value from being eroded by 'black swans' or 'gray rhinos.'
It is the perfect carrier for 'liquidity tactics': USDD based on the Wavefield network allows for almost instantaneous transfers at zero cost. Suppose the UNI proposal fails, causing a panic drop in prices to your expected bottom-fishing range (around 4.85 as mentioned by Bai Yue); at this time, holding USDD allows you to quickly transfer funds to the exchange within seconds, precisely capturing the low-priced chips brought by panic without worrying about missing the best timing or enduring price fluctuations during the transfer process.
It provides another form of certainty beyond 'decentralized governance': The rise and fall of UNI highly depend on the governance voting results of its DAO community, which is fundamentally a 'human consensus' that carries uncertainty and gamesmanship. In contrast, the stability of USDD is built on 'mathematical consensus'—achieved through an on-chain transparent over-collateralization mechanism. When you participate in speculation that relies on 'human consensus', holding a stable asset based on 'mathematical consensus' is a rational choice to hedge against governance failure risks.
Therefore, when facing the proposal betting of UNI, a more comprehensive strategy is:
Speculative portion: Use a small position (such as 10-20% of total funds) to bet on the voting results of UNI, and strictly set stop-loss.
Stable portion: Store most of your funds and realized profits in @usddio (USDD). This ensures that regardless of the voting result, most of your assets are in a stable value and readily available state.
Standby portion: If the vote fails and causes market panic, the USDD in your hands is your 'reserve force' ready to strike; if the vote passes and triggers FOMO, USDD can also serve as the 'final station' for your profits at high positions.
Market opportunities always come from volatility, but the wisdom of long-term survival comes from building certainty amidst volatility. The proposal story of UNI is tempting, but smart money understands: before betting on any single story, ensure that your 'home court' is stable enough.
When everyone is holding their breath for tomorrow's voting results, it's worth asking yourself: in my asset allocation, is that portion of 'stable trust' that does not rely on any voting sufficient?
