Just saw a post saying governance tokens are “like buying a ticket to get in,” and it actually makes some sense. Back when I was new to the space, I used to think governance meant every token holder has an equal vote, and the project team has to listen to the community. Looking back now, I was way too naïve.

The winners are still the big whales and institutions. Most of the tokens held by retail users are either left idle or delegated out directly. Delegated voting looks like “handing power to professionals,” but those “professionals” may be aligned with the team, or it may simply be a few big holders taking turns to run the table. What difference is there between the vote you cast and the one you don’t cast? In the end, the proposals that pass are always in their favor.

This is similar to the anti-sybil, points-based task platforms during the recent airdrop season—where farming crews “compete like going to work.” Resources are concentrated in the hands of a few, and for ordinary people, it’s hard to make their voice heard just by “vote counts.” The core problem with governance tokens is: who exactly are they governing? Are they governing retail users, or the project itself? Honestly, I’m starting to feel that this is more like a “proof of voting power,” not a “proof of decision-making power.” Real influence is only in the hands of those few big whales.

Forget it, let’s leave it at that. Anyway, I won’t stockpile governance tokens just for voting power—unless it can also share some trading fees or something.