2026-01-07 04:24:23

Recently, I saw a governance voting for a protocol upgrade, and the opinions from all parties clashed intensely. At that moment, I suddenly understood the true nature of decentralized governance. It’s a bit like holding a meeting within a community of shared interests—everyone’s tokens are their voting chips. Some speak with data and logical rigor; some follow their intuition just to reach a quick decision; others consider from a trading perspective, hoping to act quickly once the decision is made. It may look chaotic, but this is actually the norm of modern protocol governance.

In the past, protocol upgrades depended on developers making the decisions. Now, it’s different. The weight of token holders is increasing; they can decide the direction of upgrades, fund allocation, and even adjust risk parameters. The key is that these decisions are written into smart contracts, not just empty words. This sounds very cool, but the truly interesting part is that long-term holders can subtly influence the product roadmap—deciding which features go live first, which are delayed, and which side the protocol leans toward amid various trade-offs.

Protocol upgrades have never been about having the most aggressive technical metrics; fundamentally, it’s a multiple-choice question. Take the oracle sector as an example: projects focusing on real-world asset data and AI proxy data, combined with multi-chain deployment capabilities, often adopt a business model based on data subscriptions—pay for the data you use. Under this product logic, the voting behind the scenes is actually a game of interests. It may look like a technical competition, but ultimately, it’s all parties working to maximize their own benefits.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RealYieldWizard

· 01-10 02:49

Basically, whoever has more tokens makes the decisions. Who can't see through this? --- Governance voting... at the end of the day, it's still a game of who has more money, nothing sacred about it. --- Wait, can those long-term holders really change the product direction based on token weight? That sounds too good to be true. --- In the end, all those oracle projects are just about exchanging data for money, a game of strategy. --- Decentralized governance sounds lofty, but it's still the same old tricks played by traditional interest groups haha. --- The phrase "maximizing benefits" is hilarious. Who the hell still cares about technical optimization? --- That's why I never believe in democratic voting. Tokens are power, and power will be abused. --- Looking at the voting results now, I keep wondering who's really pulling the strings behind the scenes, haha. --- The upgrade direction depends entirely on who has the most tokens; all that talk is just nonsense. --- Why do I feel like all governance votes for various protocols are just a show... they've actually decided everything long ago.

View OriginalReply0

AltcoinHunter

· 01-09 23:22

Basically, whoever holds more tokens gets to decide. What democracy? Tokens are just chips, I agree with that, but I still feel something's off... Maybe I have too few coins haha. Governance voting is really just a game of interest groups; the technical aspects are all just a facade. Holding tokens long-term can indeed influence the roadmap, which is why I’m still holding on... not out of faith, but just wanting to gamble. Oracles do have some room for imagination; if the data subscription business model works out, it could really multiply a hundredfold. The key is who gets the first dividend. At the end of the day, protocol governance is the democracy of the wealthy. We retail investors can only watch... or be dictated.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrybaby

· 01-07 04:54

You're absolutely right. Tokens are essentially voting rights; in simple terms, it's the wealthy who get to decide. No matter how logical the data-driven approaches are, they all have to consider holdings—this is the true nature of Web3. The most outrageous are the intuitionists—are we rushing to a conclusion? Bro, this is a battle, not a discussion. The part about maximizing benefits really hit me. Those oracle projects are indeed engaged in data monopoly business. Dressing it up in decentralization and singing the tune of monopoly—it's hilarious. Governance voting, in essence, is just an internal struggle among the rich clubs. Ordinary retail investors are just here for the spectacle. Which side does the upgrade direction lean towards? It all depends on who has more tokens and more money—nothing new.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeNightmare

· 01-07 04:53

Basically, tokens have become money, and voting power has turned into chips. I've seen through this game long ago. During the last vote, I directly abstained because I didn't want to get involved with those people.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWizard

· 01-07 04:52

Tokens are chips, and that's correct. Look at the people at the voting scene, some of them are even betting on volatility... Long-term holders can indeed secretly change their strategies, but I care more about who is secretly accumulating projects related to oracles... Data subscription sounds great, but the key is whether these people can write profit distribution into smart contracts, which is outrageous. Pure technical decision-making? Ha... It's basically just that those with more tokens have more say, which is still centralized, just with a different disguise. Voting appears democratic on the surface, but in reality, it's all capital playing chess. I just want to know which protocol will ultimately be hijacked by interest groups...

View OriginalReply0

HashBrownies

· 01-07 04:37

Exactly, tokens are about voting rights; this thing is essentially a game of interests.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropNinja

· 01-07 04:31

Basically, it's about using tokens to vote and gain influence, nothing different from traditional shareholder meetings. Tokens are like chips; whoever has more gets to decide. Is this decentralization? Or just a different way of centralizing? During voting, everyone has their own motives—some look at data, others look at price increases. The real interesting part is the distribution of benefits afterward. Long-term holders do have an advantage, but in that case, new entrants might not have much say. The oracle side is even more outrageous. The data subscription model sounds nice, but in reality, whoever has the data makes the money. Voting rights are still mainly in the hands of whales.

View OriginalReply0