Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 30+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
Recently, I've been looking at governance voting again, and the more I look, the more awkward it feels: everyone talks about "community governance," but in practice, they delegate their votes to a few familiar faces. Honestly, it's about convenience, but over time it turns into a gentle form of oligarchy. Who exactly is the token governance serving? Probably more about the timetable and interests of the large token holders, while small investors can only watch proposals and argue.
These days, comparing RWA and US Treasury yields with various on-chain yield products has also become popular. I find myself thinking: when yields seem more "stable," does participation in voting decrease? After all, if the money is earning, people are too lazy to care; but if something goes wrong someday, everyone rushes to hold accountable. I can tolerate a full block, but when governance is empty, it's quite hard to fix... Let's leave it at that for now.