Recently, I saw a few governance proposals again. On the surface, it's "community voting," but upon clicking in, it's mostly just delegated back and forth among a few people... Frankly, the governance tokens might not be controlling the protocol itself, but rather the timetable of the group holding the most tokens. Everyone is busy comparing TPS, fees, and subsidies in Layer 2, arguing quite heatedly, but in the end, the final decisions usually come down to those few big votes. How to distribute ecosystem subsidies and how to change rules all depend on whether they think it's worth it.

Now I don't pay much attention to slogans when looking at governance. First, I check if active addresses are increasing and if voting participation is dispersed; otherwise, even the most "decentralized" rhetoric can seem like decoration... Anyway, better to be cautious for now.