Last night, I was browsing the blockchain and my eyes started to hurt. I casually clicked into the voting page for a governance proposal, and the more I looked, the more it felt like I was watching a “delegation leaderboard”… To put it simply, once people get governance tokens, their first thing isn’t to study the proposals—it’s to delegate to big accounts with one click, both for convenience and to look “professional.” So in the end, who exactly is the governance token really governing? Maybe it’s more about shaping ordinary people’s desire to participate.

What’s even more awkward is that now, the whole setup of testnet incentives and points is pulling everyone’s attention toward “whether the mainnet will issue tokens,” while the parameter changes and risk exposures that truly need discussion don’t have much heat. In the end, on-chain voting looks very democratic, but the actual execution mostly depends on the attitude of just a few addresses… I’m not saying big holders are definitely bad, but this trend toward oligarchy is pretty hard to reverse just with goodwill.

For now, I’ll do my best: I won’t vote randomly on proposals I don’t understand, and I’ll review and switch my delegations from time to time—at least, don’t treat “governance” as an automatic fee item. That’s it.