Just saw a proposal and almost laughed out loud—saying they want to adjust the treasury allocation ratio, but when you look closely, those big whale addresses in the voting power distribution are the same people as the market makers from the earlier unlock plan. To put it bluntly, the governance token is basically their ATM, and the votes held by retail investors are barely even noise. If they’re going to play these games, they might as well just write “We need more exit liquidity” to be honest.

On the chain gaming side, things are also pretty interesting—turn the inflation model into a spiral, and once studios and early miners start moving, the coin price just drops straight to the ground. The project team even acts like they’re “co-governed by the community,” but the proposals are full of locked-in rewards and issuance expansion subsidies. In the end, of course, the bill is always paid by the bag-holders. Don’t ask me how I know—after watching the order book for a long time, these setups are clearer than the whitepaper.

That’s it for now. I’ll keep watching the candles and won’t offer advice—saying too much makes you an easy target for backlash, but the warnings that should be given still get given. Make your own judgment; don’t let yourself get pulled in as fuel by the facade of governance.