Recently, I've been looking at a few governance votes again, and the more I look, the more it feels like weather forecasting: on the surface, a bunch of addresses are "participating," but when you click in, many are delegated votes, and in the end, it's really just a few big players making the decisions. To put it plainly, who are governance tokens actually governing... maybe it's more about soothing the emotions of us small holders, making us feel like we're on the boat too.

Not to mention, everyone entrusts their votes to "people who understand," and over time, it easily becomes oligarchic. When something goes wrong, it's hard to hold anyone accountable: blame the delegate, and they say I was just voting on behalf; blame the big holders, and they say I’m just protecting the protocol’s interests.

Lately, the NFT royalty dispute law also feels quite similar, with the same phrase "for the ecosystem." Some are protecting creators’ livelihoods, some are seeking secondary liquidity, and in the end, whoever has the most volume has the loudest voice. Anyway, I care more now about whether the rules have an exit mechanism—don’t leave it all up to a final "community decision."