You say on-chain governance is "community self-governance," but the more I look at it, the more it seems like voting at a company's annual meeting... Recently, I looked through proposals from several projects, and delegated voting, to put it simply, is just handing your vote to "someone who understands better." Eventually, it turns into a few people passing on their votes to each other, and those with louder voices and more resources get to decide. Governance tokens, in the end, might be governing the patience of token holders.

What's more awkward is that everyone is busy watching price rises and falls in daily life, and when voting day comes, they just casually click agree/disagree or simply don't vote. The regular representatives naturally have more motivation to research and campaign, so oligarchic tendencies become quite natural... I can't say they're wrong, but this structure really easily turns "participation" into "spectating."

Recently, Layer 2 projects are still arguing over TPS, fees, and ecosystem subsidies, and I become even more suspicious: on one hand, they desperately give out subsidies to attract users, and on the other hand, governance power is concentrated. In the end, are users choosing the chain, or is the chain choosing users? Anyway, I’ll just keep lying low with low volatility, and not let my emotions get carried away.