Recently, UNI's performance has indeed been somewhat perplexing. The short-term rebound is weak, oscillating within a range, neither rising nor falling significantly, just sideways drifting, which naturally has caused many to worry if something is wrong.

In fact, this wave of movement was anticipated. Regarding opinions on UNI, the core issue has always been: this token's empowerment mechanism has obvious shortcomings. I still remember when UNI surged to $12, the market voices were very optimistic, with arguments like "starting at $50, not far from $100" flying around. But from a fundamental perspective, these expectations were indeed overly optimistic. If we are to estimate a valuation ceiling for UNI, $20 is already a relatively generous assumption; anything higher would rely on concepts rather than fundamentals.

Why do I say that? The key lies in UNI's actual utility as a token. Especially after UNICHAIN officially launched, the industry once believed that UNI would play a core role in on-chain basic settlement. But the project team’s actions were a bit strange—they basically didn't give UNI such an opportunity. This led to the token remaining in a long-term "idle" state, with severely limited functionality. It wasn't until the buyback mechanism was established that the situation improved somewhat.

In simple terms, UNI's current dilemma is not a technical issue but rather that the role of the token in the ecosystem design is still not clear enough. The weak short-term rebound precisely reflects the market's true attitude towards its application value.