Recently reviewing governance voting records, it feels a bit like watching a gentle but unfair play: the proposal is said to be "community decided," but once delegation begins, the votes follow the habits of a few large addresses. Frankly, many governance tokens don't actually govern "everyone," but rather those few people who are repeatedly delegated— they haven't done anything wrong; it's just that the structure stacks power in their hands.

The economic collapse of blockchain games is also quite similar: as inflation accelerates, studios enter the scene, token prices start spiraling, and in the end, only a few who can withstand the volatility remain. Governance is the same— the higher the participation cost (reading forums, calculating risks, following through on execution), the easier it is to outsource "voting."

Recently, I gave myself a small exercise: don't expect a single vote or transaction to "change the situation back," just focus on process and probability— am I delegating because I'm lazy? Am I following votes because I'm afraid of missing out? Can I vote a few small times myself to feel the weight of information asymmetry? For now, that's it; at least don't take "I participated" as "I truly have influence."