I just took a look at the voting distribution of a certain governance proposal—and sure enough, it’s once again the delegated big holders deciding the direction. Governance tokens, plain and simple, are a “holders’ game.” Those retail voters’ voting power doesn’t even amount to a fraction. Delegated voting looks democratic, but after everyone piles in, in the end it’s still a few whales and the protocol side that call the shots. With the linear voting mechanism, big players can easily push the small retail crowd aside.

Lately, the rumors about inflows and outflows have gotten tense again. The moment a certain region starts talking about raising taxes, a lot of people are already weighing how to enter and exit even more discreetly. But honestly, the tighter compliance gets, the more willing big holders are to lock their assets deep on-chain—retailers can’t run even if they want to. No matter how the rules change, it’s always whoever has more money who wins.

What I learned wasn’t a technique. It’s that “governance” is really no different from the real world—it's all just work for the people in control.