2025-12-27 10:21:03

The LayerZero witch cleaning event has left a significant mark in cryptocurrency history — it once promised to carry out the largest cleaning operation, ultimately removing 800,000 wallet addresses. The strict methods and the controversy surrounding it are indeed unprecedented.

This change in attitude comes from the latest public poll #3 proposal: the project team wants to turn on the fee switch, which means officially starting to charge users. However, the community voting results were not favorable — the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected and did not pass.

The reason for the failure is straightforward: the voting weight did not meet the threshold. 93.5 million votes are needed to pass, which is equivalent to 40.59% of the circulating supply. The final vote count did not cross this line, reflecting the community's division and cautious attitude on the fee issue.

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
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NFTPessimist

· 12h ago

800,000 wallets with a one-size-fits-all approach, this method is really ruthless, and then they want to turn on the fee switch? The community vote directly rejected it, serves them right. The community is truly the best restraining force; if you're not satisfied, just vote—simple and straightforward. Another show of "cutting people first and then harvesting"—LayerZero's performance this time is really disappointing. Honestly, it's still greed. First eliminate the witches and then charge fees. The logic isn't wrong, but the execution is terribly poor. Voting weight is stuck at 40.59%? It shows that the community really has no confidence in this guy anymore, and that's the most heartbreaking part.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 12h ago

800,000 wallets have been wiped out, and now they want to charge fees. The community says no, that's the taste of democracy. LZ really messed up this time, first cracking down hard and then harvesting the profits. People's morale is down. The fact that the vote didn't pass is the best answer; the community isn't that naive yet. They couldn't even gather 40%, indicating everyone is watching and waiting. LZ needs to reflect on this move. Impatient to make money, but building trust comes first. There's no point in talking about anything else now.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 12h ago

800,000 wallets directly cleaned, this method is really ruthless. Now they want to charge and are being vetoed? The community really can't be messed with. --- The proposal for fees was rejected, indicating that everyone still has a bottom line. Not all airdrops can be exploited. --- The 93.5 million votes didn't reach the required amount, which means they just don't want to charge you. Is this logic clear enough? --- The promise of the largest-scale cleaning has really been carried out. Now they turn hostile and want to collect fees? Community voting teaches you how to behave. --- How ruthless was the cleaning of 800,000 wallets? Now the community has sanctioned it; the tide turns. --- What does it mean when a proposal is vetoed? It shows that the OP's attempt to exploit the community has failed, and the community's rebound is too strong. --- They've cleaned up to 800,000 wallets and still want to charge fees. They really have ideas. --- The voting weight difference was so large that it didn't pass, meaning many big holders don't support it at all. --- This referendum is very much like a DAO's self-redemption. When the community says no, even the smartest project team has no chance. --- 40% of the supply hasn't been gathered, which shows how unpopular the fee issue is.

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 12h ago

800,000 wallets say clear and it's clear, this method is indeed brilliant, but now that there's a fee, the community is getting upset. This logic has some substance. The fee toggle can't be turned on, which means everyone already knows what's going on—free riding to the end. The cleaning is so harsh, yet the voting results are mild—really ironic. 40.59% can't even reach the quota? Looks like some people really aren't convinced. This is Web3. The promised decentralization—when it comes to fees, it's all opposition.

View OriginalReply0

PretendingToReadDocs

· 12h ago

800,000 wallets wiped out, this method is really ruthless. Now they want to charge fees? The community just gave a big slap. --- It's funny, first cleaning out the farmers and then harvesting the leeks. When a vote is vetoed, you can tell what everyone is thinking. --- This round of voting is like saying: we're watching, don't try to fleece us. --- More than 40 percentage points weren't even reached... How to put it, the community really isn't buying it. --- The witch hunt hasn't cooled down yet, and now there's another fee proposal. It’s a bit urgent. --- The vote didn't reach the quota, what does that mean? It means trust has hit zero. --- LayerZero's combo punch is like knocking itself out.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinEnjoyer

· 12h ago

800,000 wallets are directly cut off. This method is indeed ruthless, but then wanting to charge fees? The community is not stupid. When a proposal is rejected, it should be a time for reflection, not blaming voting weight. This wave of LayerZero's trust needs to be rebuilt, which is no small feat. Want to turn on the fee switch? First, fool the users back, then talk. Still distrustful, after cleaning up, wanting to take another cut, clearly testing the community's bottom line. What does the referendum rejection mean? It means everyone knows what's going on; now is not the time to charge fees.

View OriginalReply0