Blockchain governance is often touted as revolutionary, but I think putting protocol updates to token-holder votes is a terrible way to run infrastructure. Take the DAO hack aftermath or recent Ethereum fee debates—whales and exchanges end up dictating outcomes, and retail users just follow the loudest voices. I've witnessed two governance proposals in my own project fail because voter turnout was under 4%, making the 'decentralized decision' a farce. Maybe the real fix is a hybrid model where technical committees handle core upgrades while token votes only set high-level direction?