On February 26, 2026, LayerZero Labs and its associated Stargate DAO completed a landmark action on-chain: the large-scale destruction of 302,715,315 STG, concurrently advancing the migration mechanism to ZRO into a substantive phase. Around this operation, two relatively clear sets of anchor data have been provided on-chain—specific destruction quantities and the exchange ratio of 1:0.08634 for STG→ZRO, laying a foundation for the community to assess the project's compliance. However, beyond the grand narrative of reconstructing the token economic model, the realities of how DAO assets are disposed of, whether they are truly “liquidated,” and the lack of comprehensive audits and third-party verification further amplify the tension between “transparent reconstruction” and “power centralization.”
300 million sent to the black hole: On-chain destruction and compliance boundaries
● Evidence of on-chain destruction: According to research briefs, the destruction of 302,715,315 STG can be tracked on the chain through transaction hash 0xb676528b4971357dc95190df3fd224aada4d1224bd65b2306c3f2e620aa5004d. The relevant address transferred the tokens to a standard “black hole” destruction address, and the balance is no longer usable, providing a verifiable basis for the claim that “the quantity has been permanently removed from circulation.” For participants concerned about the whereabouts of DAO assets, at least on the layer of “whether the destruction was actually executed,” the on-chain records provide a relatively clear answer.
● Commitments and execution alignment: LayerZero co-founder Bryan Pellegrino stated, “All remaining STG held by the DAO has been destroyed as promised” (according to a single source). Looking at this large destruction transaction, there does appear to be a concentrated liquidation action that matches the commitment, but without the total initial holding amount of the DAO, transaction history, and detailed classifications, external observers find it challenging to conclude that “the commitment has been fully fulfilled” based solely on a single or a few destruction transactions. This maintains a certain ambiguous space between “brand narrative fulfillment” and “degree of data verifiability.”
● Does destruction equal completion of liquidation: In the absence of a DAO total asset audit report and independent third-party verification, what the community can currently see is the fact that “part of the publicly identified DAO-held STG has been destroyed,” not the panoramic view of “all historical DAO assets have a stated destination.” The visible destruction on-chain indeed reinforces the compliance narrative, but it is difficult to cover more detailed issues such as “whether there are still residual assets and whether undisclosed off-chain or multi-chain positions exist,” which also implies that this round of large-scale destruction is more an important piece of the puzzle, rather than a complete asset disposal closure.
1:0.08634 exchange contract: Migration enters substantive phase
● Exchange ratio and direct impact: Meanwhile, LayerZero has opened the STG→ZRO exchange contract, with the exchange ratio set at 1:0.08634 according to the data provided in the research brief. This means that each user holding 1 STG will receive 0.08634 ZRO when participating in the migration, facing a process of “nominal quantity reduction and asset renaming” on the books. Regardless of how the market values it in the future, this fixed ratio has locked in the initial mapping relationship between STG and ZRO, which will also structurally reshape the voting weight and governance participation of old users in the future.
● Uncertainty of the exchange window: Currently, public information only confirms that the exchange contract is online and the existence of the exchange ratio, but key details such as “whether it will be open long-term, when it will close, and whether rules will be adjusted in phases”, do not have corresponding long-term proof or a clear timeline on-chain. For holders who plan to observe before participating, this means they need to continuously monitor the contract status, official announcements, and on-chain invocation situations, to prevent being caught off guard when exchange deadlines, Gas costs, or other parameters change, with the migration logic and time window itself becoming new uncertain variables.
● User migration path friction: From the user's perspective, STG holders need to complete wallet authorization, interact with the exchange contract, pay on-chain fees, and manage cross-chain and asset aggregation operations themselves when potentially involving multi-chain deployments, all of which constitute actual migration costs. With the DAO's large-scale destruction completed and the exchange contract open, the change from STG to ZRO has moved from the plan discussion phase to the phase where “action must be taken on-chain.” Those ordinary users who have yet to act are being gently but clearly pushed toward a time point that requires a choice: whether to complete the exchange early or continue to hold STG and bear the risk of rule changes.
Alameda bankruptcy wallet's entry: Chip maneuvering and fairness fractures
● Large migrations from bankruptcy wallets: The research brief points out that the Alameda bankruptcy wallet has previously exchanged 129.04 million STG for approximately 11.14 million ZRO via the exchange contract (according to a single source). This operation left a substantial on-chain record of migration, indicating that even while in bankruptcy proceedings, the address promptly completed the mapping from old tokens to new tokens, occupying a considerable share of the initial ZRO chips, contrasting sharply with ordinary users who are still waiting for clear information and exploring migration paths.
● Impact on circulation structure and perception of fairness: Such a large volume of migration directly affects the distribution structure of ZRO tokens—an institutional address that has entered bankruptcy liquidation process obtained tens of millions of ZRO at the onset of the exchange mechanism, securing a significant share of potential governance rights and future liquidity. Although, from the perspective of contract rules, the operation is "compliant," on the community sentiment level, this amplifies the feeling that “old institutions and internal players shuffle the deck first, with ordinary users picking up the pieces later,” further stimulating discussions and scrutiny over distribution fairness and asset disposal priorities.
● Questions arising from the time and information gaps: When a bankrupt institution can quickly complete a large exchange after the rules are officially implemented, while ordinary community users are still digesting announcements, searching for tutorials, and understanding risks, this time gap and information gap inevitably results in the reality of “who locked in new chips first.” The debate over the order of asset disposal thus extends to a broader level: whether the project party has provided equal information access and response time for different types of participants at critical nodes like token migration and destruction, or whether the “prophets acting first” are reshaping the power structure in fact.
From cross-chain bridge tokens to protocol native coins: Migration of narrative and power map
● The old role of STG and historical relationships: Before this round of restructuring, STG was more positioned as the functional token of the Stargate cross-chain bridge protocol, used to assume roles such as liquidity incentives, fee discounts, or governance voting, while Stargate itself operated on the LayerZero cross-chain messaging infrastructure. Thus, STG is in a relatively awkward position: inheriting risks and benefits at the cross-chain bridge level, while experiencing a certain disconnection with the value capture of the underlying cross-chain protocol. This lack of complete alignment between “bridge tokens” and “underlying protocols” laid the groundwork for later integration upgrades.
● Strategic motivations for promoting STG→ZRO: LayerZero is promoting ZRO as the protocol native token and guiding the migration of STG, logically pointing to a few clear lines: first, brand unification, bringing the narratives of the cross-chain bridge and underlying protocol under the same identifier to reduce market cognitive confusion; second, centralization of value capture, unifying tokens to undertake cross-chain messaging, liquidity, and governance rights, thereby making the transmission chain between protocol-level revenue and token value more direct; third, shifting governance focus, reconstructing a decision-making system centered on ZRO beyond the existing DAO structure, allowing future upgrades and resource allocation of the protocol to be more focused on a new hub with a higher degree of centralization.
● Trend of power flow back from DAO to foundation: The research brief mentions that the LayerZero Foundation has acquired the Stargate protocol and treasury, which remains to be verified, but even without elaborating specific timelines and details, one can see a clear trend starting from the fact that “DAO assets have been largely destroyed, and the migration path is designed and led by the protocol party”: financial and governance powers that were originally dispersed within the DAO structure are being concentrated in the hands of foundations and core teams under the guise of “brand upgrade” and “token unification.” For a cross-chain infrastructure that emphasizes decentralization, this transition from community-led to protocol-led management represents a new trade-off between efficiency and autonomy.
Transparent commitments and reality gaps: An unfinished project of trust rebuilding
● Boundaries of commitment credibility: After Bryan made the statement that “all STG held by the DAO has been destroyed,” the project sent a strong signal of “taking responsibility for historical assets” to the outside world. However, in the absence of complete asset audits, treasury composition lists, and third-party verifications, this claim is closer to a “high-probability expectation” in terms of credibility in the community, rather than a conclusion that can be fully closed by data. In other words, participants willing to believe the project will regard this destruction as fulfillment of the commitment, while those with doubts will continue to ask, “Are there still unseen positions?”
● Verifiable parts and areas still blind spots: Currently, elements that can be verified through on-chain and public information mainly include: first, the previously mentioned 302,715,315 STG destruction transaction; second, the 1:0.08634 exchange ratio written into the contract; third, large address migration actions like the Alameda bankruptcy wallet. Blind spots still exist concerning the total historical asset amount of the DAO, complete lists of cross-chain and multi-chain assets, and whether there are undisclosed internal address arrangements. This state of “partially transparent + partially unknown” inevitably leads to subjective projections in the community's understanding of the entire disposal process.
● Importance of information disclosure from historical lessons: Reflecting on past security incidents of cross-chain protocols and various governance disputes, the lack of timely and adequate information disclosure often amplifies distrust afterward. For LayerZero, this round of STG destruction and ZRO migration represents a window for reshaping power dynamics and economic models, as well as an opportunity to address historical doubts and strengthen the trust foundation. If at this juncture, more detailed asset audit results, treasury flow explanations, and future governance arrangement blueprints can be launched, it would help transform the current “story-driven” narrative into a “data-driven” one, thus reducing long-term disputes surrounding asset disposal orders and chip distributions.
New cross-chain narrative begins: Chips and positions in the ZRO era
The series of actions surrounding the 302,715,315 STG destruction and STG→ZRO migration is not merely a simple token replacement, but fundamentally redraws the power map and value flow of the LayerZero ecosystem: DAO assets are concentrated into destruction addresses, the historical role of the old bridge tokens gradually fades, the protocol native token ZRO takes the stage, and the influence of the foundation and core team on governance and asset distribution subsequently rises. For the entire cross-chain narrative, this represents a structural adjustment focused on “protocol-native value,” as well as a consolidation and simplification of previous multi-layer token designs.
Looking ahead, several key variables will ultimately determine the direction of this upgrade: first, whether the open duration and rules of the ZRO exchange contract remain stable, allowing ordinary users to complete migration without significant incidents within a sufficiently long time window; second, how the subsequent governance structure is designed, and to what extent the powers of the old DAO are retained or reconstructed; third, whether more audits and information disclosures will fill the gaps, enabling the statement that “all STG held by the DAO has been destroyed” to evolve from a mere declaration to a fact that can be independently verified by external entities. Until these questions are gradually answered, external observers can only construct their judgment frameworks and betting positions between “a reasonable upgrade returning to protocol-native value” and “a structural shift leaning towards centralized asset disposal.”
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
