Recently, I've been looking at delegated voting again, and the more I look, the more I feel that governance tokens often don't actually govern the “community,” but rather a few big accounts' control panels... Everyone finds it troublesome to delegate their votes with one click, but as a result, voting power becomes more and more concentrated. In the end, whether proposals pass or what parameters are changed mainly depends on whether a few people's opinions and interests are aligned.

A couple of days ago, before and after the upgrade/maintenance of that mainstream public chain, everyone in the group was guessing whether the ecosystem would migrate. I think whether it migrates or not isn't entirely a technical issue; if the governance structure has already become oligarchic, project teams only need to keep an eye on those key delegates. Migration, as a major event, might actually be more “efficient,” but it also makes people feel less involved.

I personally trust data more than intuition: intuition can be easily swayed by narratives, but data at least can tell you whether the concentration of voting rights, delegation chains, activity levels, and so on are actually changing. Anyway, right now, when I see the words “decentralized governance,” I pause for a second... for now, that's how it is.