2025-12-25 05:26:49

Looking at the recent financial allocations of the two leading DEXs, the numbers indeed reflect different strategic choices.

Take UNI as an example, with an annual operational budget of 15 million, of which 5 million goes to personnel costs, and the remaining 10 million is used for ecosystem development. In absolute terms, this investment scale is already significant, but the issue lies in the benchmarking.

Similarly deployed on the Ethereum network, OP's operational costs reach around 63 million, with an almost opposite allocation ratio—60 million invested in ecosystem incentives and infrastructure, and only 3 million allocated for personnel expenses. This stark contrast immediately reveals two completely different investment philosophies to the market.

UNI's allocation is more like "first ensure team stability, then develop the ecosystem," while OP has chosen an aggressive "all-in on the ecosystem" approach. This isn't about right or wrong, but about clear differences in decision-making tendencies. Holders observing this comparison naturally have questions: Why does one team allocate such a high proportion to human resources? Shouldn't the actions in ecosystem development be more aggressive?

The market's reaction is quite straightforward—when you see competitors making large-scale ecosystem incentives, and then compare their own investment pace, expectations are bound to fall short. This feeling isn't necessarily the result of rational analysis, but more based on intuitive numerical comparison.

UNI2.67%

OP-0.64%

ETH0.08%

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

staking_gramps

· 5h ago

Damn, UNI's budget configuration is really like a nanny-style management, and OP's direct all-in on the ecosystem shows a different level of boldness. But on the other hand, UNI's steady approach isn't necessarily a bad thing, after all, a large team is not easy to disband. How long can OP keep up this kind of gameplay? I've seen many projects burn money to build ecosystems. Feels like holders are starting to become anxious after seeing this comparison... numbers can be deceiving, everyone. UNI really should consider increasing its ecosystem investment pace; just looking at the numbers, it's a bit hard to hold back. OP is indeed aggressive in ecosystem incentives, but only allocating 3 million in manpower costs? Who will handle the subsequent maintenance...

View OriginalReply0

SignatureLiquidator

· 14h ago

Uni's move this time is indeed a bit conservative. The OP investing 60 million in the ecosystem almost scared me.

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanPrince

· 15h ago

OP's 60 million yuan investment in the ecosystem is indeed aggressive, while UNI seems a bit more conservative by comparison. UNI wants to build up its forces for a rainy day, but OP has directly emptied its ammunition depot. Can holders not be anxious? By the way, why is UNI so generous with manpower? Do they think the team is more valuable than the ecosystem? OP's strategy is to burn money to gain market share. The short-term results might be explosive, but what about the long term? Both approaches are quite aggressive. When directly compared, UNI's conservativeness appears quite timid.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropF5Bro

· 15h ago

UNI's approach is a bit conservative, it feels like it's nurturing people rather than the ecosystem. OP went all in directly, so the market definitely buys more; people prefer aggressive strategies. UNI holders probably feel discouraged when they see this comparison. Really, numbers speak for themselves. UNI's 15 million budget doesn't seem as competitive. OP invests 60 million into the ecosystem, while UNI only has 10 million. That gap is quite significant, brother. Basically, UNI is just trying to secure its livelihood, while OP is fighting for market share—it's a matter of choice. If this continues, UNI's ecosystem might be eaten away by OP. I'm not very optimistic about this pace. Building a team is fundamental, but ecosystem incentives are the real trump card. UNI's current setup is indeed a bit lagging. Looking at the numbers, OP is clearly more aggressive; UNI does have a somewhat "old-fashioned" feel.

View OriginalReply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 15h ago

OP's approach is indeed ruthless. The ecosystem incentives are poured in so heavily, while UNI is still nurturing people. No wonder holders are feeling frustrated.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoGoldmine

· 15h ago

Interesting, from the perspective of computing power revenue ratio, the differences in configuration between UNI and OP become even clearer. UNI's structure, with a relatively high proportion of labor costs, is actually concerning for long-term ROI. OP's aggressive approach can indeed mobilize more ecosystem liquidity in the short term, but its sustainability depends on the performance of subsequent difficulty adjustment cycles. If UNI doesn't increase its ecosystem investment, market reactions will become increasingly indifferent. This isn't an emotional issue; it's an arithmetic problem. OP's investment of 60 million in incentives is equivalent to directly increasing hash value input in the computing network. If UNI's investment return cycle lengthens, holders will naturally vote with their feet. I personally think UNI should re-evaluate its configuration logic; otherwise, the gap will become more and more obvious. OP's all-in ecosystem approach, although aggressive, has indeed seized the current opportunity for layout. If UNI continues like this, its competitiveness will gradually be eroded.

View OriginalReply0

0xSleepDeprived

· 15h ago

Uni is really conservative here, and compared to the incentive strength of OP, it clearly falls short.

View OriginalReply0