Last week on Openledger, there was a proposal to decide whether to use part of the ecosystem fund to sponsor an AI-generated art competition. Supporters said it would attract creators, while opponents argued it strayed from the focus on 'serious data.' I stared at the screen for twenty minutes before finally clicking 'abstain.'
This wasn't because I don't care, but because I feel that voting with $OPEN on such a 'directional' issue at this stage is like using a cannon to swat a mosquito. Can the tokens we hold really gauge our wisdom on 'where the community should head'? I don't think so. It's more about measuring our capital and short-term interests.
Those addresses holding a large amount of OPEN, whether they are project teams, institutions, or whales, have one vote that counts for a thousand of mine. Their voting tendencies will naturally lean towards strategies that 'favor rapid expansion of token price and ecosystem scale.' This is understandable, but is that the optimal solution for the project's long-term health? I don’t know. My little opposing vote, even if cast, is instantly drowned out; aside from expressing some useless emotions, it changes nothing. $ETH
So this time I chose to abstain. I see this as a form of passive protest, or rather, a clear positioning: in the early stages of governance, when voting rights are absolutely tied to capital, my role may not be as a 'decision-maker,' but more as an 'observer' and 'foot voter.'
What I'm watching is how those in power use their authority. Are they leaning towards short-term trends, or are they digging deep into the core? After the proposal passes, what’s the execution like? Is the funding being misused? If the decision outcomes continuously deviate from what I believe to be the 'right track,' and my voice cannot be heard, then the most rational choice is not to continue facing defeats in voting, but to reduce my participation and investment.
OpenLedger's governance mechanism is advanced; it gives everyone formal equality. But beneath this 'formal equality' lies a substantial inequality brought by capital. Recognizing this might help me stay calm. I no longer feel anxious about not being able to influence the bigger picture; instead, I focus more on this ship dominated by big capital—where exactly is it headed? If I don't like the destination, at least I know when to jump off.
@OpenLedger #OpenLedger
This wasn't because I don't care, but because I feel that voting with $OPEN on such a 'directional' issue at this stage is like using a cannon to swat a mosquito. Can the tokens we hold really gauge our wisdom on 'where the community should head'? I don't think so. It's more about measuring our capital and short-term interests.
Those addresses holding a large amount of OPEN, whether they are project teams, institutions, or whales, have one vote that counts for a thousand of mine. Their voting tendencies will naturally lean towards strategies that 'favor rapid expansion of token price and ecosystem scale.' This is understandable, but is that the optimal solution for the project's long-term health? I don’t know. My little opposing vote, even if cast, is instantly drowned out; aside from expressing some useless emotions, it changes nothing. $ETH
So this time I chose to abstain. I see this as a form of passive protest, or rather, a clear positioning: in the early stages of governance, when voting rights are absolutely tied to capital, my role may not be as a 'decision-maker,' but more as an 'observer' and 'foot voter.'
What I'm watching is how those in power use their authority. Are they leaning towards short-term trends, or are they digging deep into the core? After the proposal passes, what’s the execution like? Is the funding being misused? If the decision outcomes continuously deviate from what I believe to be the 'right track,' and my voice cannot be heard, then the most rational choice is not to continue facing defeats in voting, but to reduce my participation and investment.
OpenLedger's governance mechanism is advanced; it gives everyone formal equality. But beneath this 'formal equality' lies a substantial inequality brought by capital. Recognizing this might help me stay calm. I no longer feel anxious about not being able to influence the bigger picture; instead, I focus more on this ship dominated by big capital—where exactly is it headed? If I don't like the destination, at least I know when to jump off.
@OpenLedger #OpenLedger