This matter needs to be thoroughly clarified from the beginning, otherwise it’s easy to get confused. Recently, the friction between YZi Labs and CEA Industries’ board of directors within a leading exchange ecosystem appears on the surface as a shareholding dispute, but deeper down it reflects systemic issues in crypto ecosystem governance.

**The Poison Pill Scheme**

CEA’s recent actions essentially set a trap for shareholders. The rules are straightforward: anyone holding more than 15% of shares alone will trigger a clause, allowing other shareholders to increase their holdings at a discounted price, directly diluting your ownership stake. Sounds like protecting minority shareholders? In reality, it’s a tool for the board to exert control.

Even more outrageous, they also amended the company bylaws to complicate shareholders’ voting rights. Written consent used to be simple; now it involves a bunch of procedures, clearly aiming to restrict shareholder power and consolidate internal control. As a significant shareholder holding about 7%, YZi Labs’ opposition makes sense—it’s not for their own benefit, but to speak out on behalf of all shareholders.

**Why This Is More Than Just a Business Dispute**

As the crypto ecosystem has developed, the most common problem is the concentration of power. The board controls strategic direction but lacks checks and balances; even with many minor shareholders, there’s little they can do. CEA’s situation is typical: they have mature assets and reserves but choose not to develop them, instead focusing on adjusting token compositions. The logic and procedures behind these decisions are questionable.

When governance systems start to loosen, the first to suffer are usually ordinary shareholders. Poison pill schemes, under the guise of protection, are actually a form of power abuse.

**The Root Issue Is Transparency**

At the core of this conflict is a simple principle: the board must follow rules, and shareholders must have a voice. Nomination procedures should be transparent, election processes fair, and decision-making logic clear. Currently, information asymmetry exists; shareholders are passively accepting, and the board makes the decisions.

In recent years, frequent project failures in the crypto industry often stem from internal governance breakdowns. YZi’s firm stance may not only be about shareholding interests but also about setting an industry example—making ecosystem projects realize that they cannot rely on technological mystique and information gaps to do as they please. What needs to be clarified should be clarified, and shareholders’ rights must be upheld.

How this ultimately unfolds could serve as a reference case for governance in the entire crypto ecosystem.