Over the past couple of days, I’ve been going through governance votes again, and the more I look, the more it feels like voting on “delegation relationships”: everyone hands their votes over to save effort, and in the end, decision-making largely lands in the hands of a few big addresses/organizations. Put bluntly, governance tokens don’t govern the protocol—they govern the token holder distribution and the consensus of opinions. On-chain data is pretty honest; once voter participation drops, oligarchic control automatically speeds up.

The noise over NFT royalties is also pretty similar. Creators want stable income, while the market complains that liquidity gets locked up. In the end, it still comes down to who has the stronger say. Anyway, when I look at governance proposals now, I first check the delegation distribution and voting concentration, then look at how nicely the proposal is written… It’s a bit cold, but at least it’s less likely to get manipulated by emotions.