Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
More
A major investor in the BNC ecosystem has publicly challenged board governance, alleging defensive tactics including poison pill provisions and bylaw modifications designed to obstruct shareholder oversight. The dispute centers on a delayed annual shareholder meeting, scheduled well beyond mid-December, alongside disagreement over the protocol's treasury allocation strategy. The investor contests a potential pivot in blockchain focus, questioning whether the organization should maintain commitment to one chain or explore alternatives—a decision with significant implications for ecosystem liquidity and developer activity. These governance tensions surfaced in regulatory filings, highlighting the friction between institutional stakeholders and board leadership on strategic direction. The standoff reflects broader Web3 governance challenges as protocols scale and stakeholder interests diverge.
---
The board wants to delay the meeting, it's really hilarious. What about transparency?
---
Multi-chain or single-chain, this decision has been delayed for months... developers have long since left.
---
Another governance drama, investment institutions fighting each other, and in the end, the ecosystem suffers.
---
No matter how the treasury is divided, someone is dissatisfied. An old problem in Web3.
---
Postponing meetings, amending bylaws, blocking voting rights... isn't this the traditional VC playbook?
---
Regarding chain focus, I really don't know if the board wants to be conservative or expand. The information is too opaque.
---
Every time there's internal strife like this, liquidity declines, and holders need to be more vigilant.
---
Who is the poison pill protecting? It seems to backfire and undermine its own foundation.
---
Single chain or multi-chain, this thing determines life or death... Without liquidity, nothing else matters.
---
Regarding governance, Web3 is still too immature, being played thoroughly by institutions.
---
Waiting until December to hold the board meeting? Clearly just stalling for time.
---
How to allocate the treasury is a major issue, and now it’s even being used as a bargaining chip.
---
Wow, the regulatory documents are all laid out openly. This is getting serious.
---
Single chain vs multi-chain, choosing the wrong one could ruin the entire ecosystem.
---
With such severe利益分化, can BNC even survive?
---
Is this what they call "decentralization"? Uh...
---
Endless defensive strategies indicate that someone is really panicking.
---
Single chain or multi-chain, can't figure out this problem, how to grow big and strong?
---
Delaying the shareholders' meeting... this is just stalling for time, it's obvious.
---
Internal conflicts within the ecosystem, liquidity suffers, developers should have left long ago.
---
Board's tactics are brilliant, just missing directly saying "you have no rights."
---
Treasury distribution must be transparent, or who will trust you?
---
Feels like Web3 governance is becoming more and more like traditional corporate drama, isn't it?
---
If investors dare to openly confront, it means the issue is serious. Waiting for the follow-up.
---
Multi-chain ecosystem is just like this, in the end, it still depends on the stability of a single chain.
Internal conflicts within BNC are heating up. Multi-chain or single-chain? It feels like a game of power in the new era.
Treasury allocation has been stuck for so long. I think it's all about disagreements over profit sharing.
Delaying the shareholders' meeting—this move is brilliant... but it will blow up sooner or later.
The debate between sticking to a single chain and expanding to multiple chains boils down to fear of losing control.
This governance chaos, the ecosystem token should have been destroyed long ago.
The board wants to monopolize the discourse power, how can investors tolerate that? Exciting times.
A soul-searching question: who should really have the final say?
---
Single chain or multi-chain, this should have been discussed openly long ago. Why does it have to be dragged into regulatory documents?
---
The BNC board of directors is really causing trouble. You've already drained the liquidity with your internal conflicts.
---
Wait, postponing until mid-December? What about the liquidity? Are the developers still around?
---
Investors daring to oppose indicate something's wrong. The tight defensive stance makes it even more suspicious.
---
The direction of the protocol should be openly discussed. Stop with these delaying tactics.