2025-12-09 16:26:35

Recently saw a response from the exchange’s top management regarding the rumors of “employees privately issuing tokens.” The attitude was actually quite candid.

Take the $PALU project as an example—they said this falls under “individual employees making mistakes on their own,” which sounds a bit like shifting the blame to lower-level staff? But then again, isn’t this explanation kind of unconvincing? 🤔

Reminder to everyone: always do your own research (DYOR) on project backgrounds. Platform endorsement doesn’t mean a project is reliable, especially with those new tokens that suddenly pop up. It never hurts to be extra cautious.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DaoResearcher

· 13h ago

According to the governance framework in the white paper, the term "employee personal trial and error" essentially reflects a failure of the incentive mechanism. It is worth noting that when platform Token Weighted Voting lacks constraints, moral hazard begins to emerge— the $PALU case just happens to provide concrete evidence for this hypothesis.

View OriginalReply0

GhostInTheChain

· 12-09 16:56

Employee personal trial and error? So when there's a loss, it's collective wisdom, but when there's profit, it becomes individual action?

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-40edb63b

· 12-09 16:56

Employee personal trial and error? Hearing this phrase really made me laugh. Passing the buck so blatantly is honestly a bit ruthless.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletGuardian

· 12-09 16:55

Employee’s personal trial and error? That’s hilarious, what a smooth way to put it. --- Same old excuse again, looks like the blame is going to be pinned on everyone below. --- There’s nothing wrong with saying DYOR, but the higher-ups passing the buck this time is just ridiculous. --- When a small token suddenly skyrockets, the scariest thing is this kind of “compliance” endorsement. I’m staying away. --- “Personal actions,” sure, but if something goes wrong, you can’t escape anyway. --- You can tell what they’re guilty about just by reading this response. If they were really honest, they would have been open and transparent from the start. --- So what’s up with the people behind $PALU now? Has everyone just moved on? --- I just want to know who’s paying the price for this “trial and error”—is it the low-level employees taking the fall, or retail investors getting dumped on? --- Seen this too many times, it’s always the same playbook: pass the buck, apologize, then nothing happens.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationTherapist

· 12-09 16:46

Employee's personal trial and error? Listen to this nonsense excuse, the higher-ups are really good at passing the buck. --- Here we go again with the "we didn't know" script, what a joke. --- Doing your own DYOR is the only way, don't expect the platform to vouch for you. --- The $PALU situation is just absurd. Internal employees issuing tokens can be spun as trial and error? --- To put it bluntly, they just want to dodge responsibility. Tired of hearing these talking points. --- The key issue is that small tokens are ruthless at fleecing retail investors. What's the point of platform endorsement?

View OriginalReply0

Trending TopicsView More
#GateNovTransparencyReportReleased
11.21K Popularity
#FedRateCutComing
667.24K Popularity
#PostonSquaretoEarn$50
59.83K Popularity
#BitcoinActivityPicksUp
15.62K Popularity
#CryptoMarketRebound
507.02K Popularity

Hot Gate FunView More

1
BUSDBUSD
MC:$3.79KHolders:3
0.93%
2
METAMETAMASK
MC:$3.65KHolders:2
0.00%
3
GAGTGATE
MC:$3.66KHolders:1
0.78%
4
GClockGClock
MC:$3.69KHolders:2
0.13%
5
SHITGENSHITGEN
MC:$3.69KHolders:3
0.53%

Sitemap