While talking about governance proposals, it suddenly occurred to me: they call it community self-governance, but the voter turnout is so unbelievably low. In the end, it’s all just a few major protocols making decisions for everyone. Delegated voting sounds perfectly reasonable. Put plainly, it’s a small experiment in oligarchy—if you can’t be bothered to move, I’ll move for you, and anyway the voting power is in my hands.

Recently, with that whole cross-chain bridge fiasco, everyone was shouting that we need to wait for confirmation—wait for what confirmation? By the time you’re actually waiting for consensus, the money has already run. Oracle abnormal price quotes are the same story: the governance layer says, “On-chain consensus can’t be tampered with,” but every time it turns out there’s a human layer stepping in to cover it up. Why don’t we just stop pretending it’s decentralized, and instead say, “The core team decides”? Wouldn’t that be more straightforward, right?

As for me, when I look at the delegation records of those big holders, I find it all kind of strange: governance tokens—what exactly are they governing? It doesn’t feel like they’re governing people so much as they’re governing the crowd’s mindset of “just sit back and watch the show.”