#opg $OPG I used to think protocol upgrades were mostly technical.

A few lines of code get changed, nodes update, and the network moves forward.

The more I've learned about OpenGradient, the more I've realized the code might actually be the easy part.

What I find interesting is the decision that comes before the upgrade.

Every protocol change is a bet on a future version of the network that doesn't exist yet. And before that future can be built, the network has to decide whether it's worth pursuing at all.

That's where governance starts to matter.

I don't think the biggest question is whether an upgrade is good or bad.

I think it's how much collective conviction should be required before a protocol is allowed to change its own rules.

Too little resistance, and decisions can become reactive.

Too much resistance, and innovation slows down.

I've come to believe that the real challenge is finding the balance between those two extremes.

That's also why I see $OPG as more than just a token.

To me, it's a way of translating commitment into influence. A mechanism that helps determine who gets a voice in shaping the network's future.

The longer I think about it, the more I feel that OpenGradient's success won't be defined by how many upgrades get approved.

It will be defined by whether the governance system continues to produce decisions that still make sense years from now.

And in my opinion, that's a much harder problem than writing code.
@OpenGradient #OPG $OPG