These days, I've been watching the governance group argue again about whether "delegated voting is really saving lives"… To put it simply, delegation was originally meant for people who don't have time, but once everyone starts taking shortcuts and handing their votes to a few familiar faces, governance tokens end up resembling the schedules and stances of just those few people. The most awkward part is, no matter how well-written the proposals are, if they don't catch the delegate's attention, it's as if nothing happened.

The collapse points in blockchain games are actually quite similar: when inflation kicks in, studios enter the scene, and the token price begins to spiral, leaving ordinary players with only the role of being "incentivized." The same goes for governance—if incentive design only rewards voting volume and doesn't reward decentralization and long-term commitment, oligarchization becomes very natural… Anyway, right now I look at proposals first by checking: the concentration of voting power, whether there are exit costs for delegates, and then I look at the content, just like that.