Let’s talk about something interesting: this “governance token” thing is said to be “community self-governance,” but in reality once the delegated voting mechanism is set up, it ends up looking more like an oligarch game—big holders delegate their votes to a few protocols, small retail users can’t be bothered to vote or vote but it doesn’t matter, and in the end decision-making power is still concentrated in the hands of a few people. Honestly, sometimes when I browse proposals, I find the voter turnout is pitifully low; only a handful of players are truly influential, which feels a bit at odds with the original goal of “decentralization.”

The recent dispute over NFT royalties has also been pretty funny. Creators and platforms are at each other’s throats—one side says they need to protect revenue, while the other keeps an eye on liquidity. But the underlying logic is basically the same: in a governance structure, who should token holders actually represent? Large token holders, or protocol users? As far as I’m concerned, if voting power is tied too tightly to capital, then what gets “governed” is likely just capital—not the community.

Assembled from stained-glass panes, the light can’t pass through, and it shatters.