Recently, a governance proposal from a major DEX was approved with 125 million votes in favor and 7,420 against. At first glance, these numbers seem to represent "community consensus," but a closer look at the on-chain voting data reveals that things are not so simple.

To put it plainly, this overwhelming voting result precisely highlights the problem—community members tend to support proposals that may bring short-term gains without much thought, while long-term health and technical security of the ecosystem are often ignored as "boring" issues. Meanwhile, Trust Wallet was hacked for $7 million due to an extension vulnerability. How many people are concerned about whether the protocol's security is actually sound? Instead, topics like "how many tokens can be burned and how transaction fees are distributed" tend to spark widespread discussion.

What’s more painful is that this so-called "democratic governance" has long been distorted. The top 1% of addresses control nearly half of the voting power, and the remaining retail investors' votes are just for show. Large holders vote with their feet, while small retail investors follow the trend—what kind of consensus is this?

Looking at the proposal itself—the core is to burn 100 million tokens plus transaction fee buybacks, a typical deflationary model. From the token holders' perspective, it’s definitely beneficial, but only if the ecosystem itself is still growing. If the protocol’s usage and trading volume do not truly increase, burning will only concentrate the existing chips further, just like this year’s $53 billion evaporation in AI-related tokens. No matter how much you burn, it won’t fill the fundamental gaps.