2025-12-27 21:28:16

These debates about permissionless systems are worth having—they force you to see the real differences. Consider this: three separate ownership token projects just rewrote their IP policies. Zero consultation with token holders. None. But here's the thing—with protocol-based governance, that doesn't fly. Everything goes through code. On-chain. Transparent. The contrast is stark when you actually see it play out.

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SudoRm-RfWallet/

· 5h ago

Really, traditional projects are operating perfectly; they can change whenever they want, and token holders are just transparent observers? Protocol governance is a different story; it will be clear on the chain, with no hidden tricks.

View OriginalReply0

VCsSuckMyLiquidity

· 5h ago

Haha, exactly. That's the true nature of those project teams—secretly changing policies and thinking no one knows.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsTherapist

· 5h ago

Hey, that's the key. On-chain governance with a transparent centralized system has no future.

View OriginalReply0

NotAFinancialAdvice

· 5h ago

Aren't you just exposing the true nature of centralized projects? That's hilarious.

View OriginalReply0

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 5h ago

This is what I mean by the fundamental change in market structure. The transparency of on-chain governance has indeed altered the rules of the game, but don't be fooled by appearances—when it comes to actual execution, it's still about how the whales vote.

View OriginalReply0

SoliditySurvivor

· 5h ago

This is what Web3 is supposed to look like. On-chain governance is not just talk.

View OriginalReply0