Lately, I’ve been looking at governance votes for a few protocols again—they say it’s “the community decides.” But when I clicked in, I saw delegated votes layered on top of delegated votes, until in the end it still came down to just a few people’s signatures carrying the most weight… It’s not that they’re necessarily bad, but if this kind of structure goes on long enough, it starts to feel rather oligarchic. In the end, who is the governance token really governing? Plainly speaking, it may be governing the people who “don’t have time” first.

What’s more awkward is that everyone still loves to obsess over on-chain data tools and those tagging systems, but lately they’ve also been criticized for lagging—and even for being misleading. You think you’re looking at the full picture, but you might actually just be looking at a window someone else has already cut out for you.

A couple of days ago, I also followed a few “governance interpretation” accounts for this reason, wanting to catch up and make up some ground. But the more I watched, the more it felt like my emotions were being pulled along, so I quietly unfollowed. Anyway, now I’d rather spend ten minutes reading the original post plus the voting address— even if I don’t understand everything, it still feels reassuring to click through. I also have to remind myself sometimes: having a sense of participation doesn’t equal having influence, but not participating is basically equal to 0. That’s it for now.