I want to discuss a long-observed phenomenon with everyone: why do seemingly promising DeFi protocols often quietly lose their vitality over time?

My conclusion is that the answer is often hidden in governance design. It's not that decentralized governance itself is problematic, but power is like water—once it flows into a certain place and converges, it's particularly easy to cause a flood and disaster.

Many protocols perform well in early distributed decision-making, but as the ecosystem evolves, the voting power gradually concentrates in the hands of a few holders, core teams, or whales. The result is: decision-making efficiency improves, but the project's flexibility and community engagement enthusiasm diminish. Governance becomes a formality, and real power is held behind the scenes.

The most ironic part is that this concentration is often the result of "rational choice"—everyone thinks that letting knowledgeable people make decisions is faster and better. But in the long run, this approach drains the protocol's vitality.

Therefore, the long-lasting and successful DeFi projects are often not those with the most perfect governance, but those that find the "moderate decentralization" balance—maintaining decision-making efficiency while allowing a broader range of participants to feel genuine influence. Only such protocols can survive longer through market cycles.