Taking advantage of a weak market, act decisively. Shifting from the Ve token lock-up model to a staking model, thus facilitating a quick update of the token holder structure at a low point, is a good thing; there are fewer convoluted processes. 1⃣ Is the Ve model the only solution for governance? Yesterday, Michael, the founder of @CurveFinance, was saying that abandoning the Ve model was a mistake. Of course, the Ve model's "hard lock-up + voting" is indeed a model: if you want to influence pool listing and pool emission for your own benefit, you have to pay sunk costs—this logic is sound. However, it's not without weaknesses. If you carefully examine the token holder structure of most Ve models, you'll see that most involve external project teams + third-party voting bribery platforms, because they need to drive emission to increase the TVL (Total Value Limit) of their pools. Therefore, this system was initially designed to "harvest" these big players. Moreover, most of these big players ultimately use third-party voting bribery platforms to allocate budgets, allowing platforms that have locked up governance tokens to vote on their behalf. It would be better to be more direct and allow projects to directly incentivize their own pools. Uniswap, for example, had its own LP Programs in its early days. As for the remaining emissions, besides saving some, they could be directly handed over to the market instead of being decided by voting. Higher TVL and better trading volume mean more, and vice versa – that's fair. Ultimately, the Ve model itself has inherent costs. Even for most traditional investors, the idea that "only by locking up money for several years can one participate in governance or receive dividends" is a very counterintuitive design. For Altcoin to break out of its niche, it needs to expand its holder base like Bitcoin. Simply focusing on the advantages of Ve and only allowing a small group of users to participate creates a stabilizing structure. 2⃣ Hard Lock-up + Voting + Bribe > Buyback + Soft Staking? There's no standard answer to this question. During the transition period, there might indeed be some pressure from the unlocking of hard lock-up tokens. However, Pendle's Ve staking ratio isn't very high, unlike projects like @CurveFinance or @AerodromeFi which have exceptionally high VPS. In reality, many staking projects have much higher staking ratios. Therefore, in equilibrium, the former (VPS) isn't necessarily superior to the latter (VPS) for Pendle. More importantly, supply and demand aren't something that token models, as mere "techniques," should excessively bear. Relying solely on token design to "adjust supply and demand" is almost always unsustainable. What truly determines supply and demand is always the product itself, revenue expectations, and liquidity. Token models can't solve these issues; they can only amplify or distort them. From a purely pragmatic perspective: The Liquid staking model is simply more comfortable than the Ve model. At least, that's how it is for me.