In the world of DeFi, there is a famous saying: "Code is law." But reality is often more complex. Falcon Finance is a vivid example - this platform, driven by synthetic USD USDf and interest-generating token sUSDf, with a maximum lock-up position of 120 million USD, has recently sparked heated discussions due to the allocation plan for its FF governance token.

The data is striking: 59% of the FF tokens initially flowed into the hands of core participants. Among them, the foundation took 32.2%, the team 20%, and investors 4.5%. At first glance, this seems to run counter to the spirit of "decentralization" in DeFi. However, upon deeper examination of the project logic, you will find that this design is not merely a power grab, but rather a tactical choice—necessary trade-offs made for greater ambitions at this stage.

Why say this? First, let's look at the first dimension: business complexity. Falcon Finance is not as simple as a traditional lending protocol. It has to handle complex financial models such as hedging operations for synthetic assets, arbitrage between exchanges (combined trading between CEX and DEX), and volatility management. These operations have very high demands on response speed and risk control. In the early stage of the ecosystem, if decision-making is completely decentralized, efficiency will be greatly compromised. Centralized token distribution allows the core team to have sufficient governance power to quickly respond to market changes and manage systemic risks.

In simple terms, this is a compromise between efficiency and ideals that must be made when building a new stablecoin ecosystem. As the ecosystem matures, this concentration is expected to gradually be released to the community. Currently, it feels more like a transitional arrangement.