I’ve been looking at a few governance proposals again lately, and the more I read, the more it feels a bit off: they say it’s “governing together,” but in the end, all those votes get delegated to a handful of big accounts. It looks democratic on the surface, but underneath it feels like an oligarchic council… Who is actually being governed by that governance token—if we’re being honest, it’s probably mostly just swaying retail investors’ emotions.

What’s even stranger is that the cross-chain bridge gets stolen from again, and the oracle reports some wildly off price. The first reaction in the group isn’t to hold anyone accountable—it’s “let’s wait for confirmation first”… I can understand that kind of consensus too, after all, we’ve been slapped in the face too many times. But the more we keep waiting, the more it starts to look like we’re just defaulting to the idea that power should be concentrated in the hands of a few “people who know.”

I’m also conflicted myself: on one hand, I want to delegate my votes to make things easier; on the other hand, I’m afraid that by doing that, I’ll end up giving away even my own small voice. Either way, I’ll observe first—if I can vote myself, I’ll vote myself. If I end up losing money, I’ll just treat it as tuition.