Why Most Governance Is Just Theatre

The uncomfortable truth about protocol governance: most of it doesn't matter, and everyone knows it.

Watch any major DAO long enough and patterns emerge. Proposals that affect core team interests pass with overwhelming support or get quietly withdrawn. Proposals from outsiders languish in discussion forums. Token votes rubber-stamp decisions already made in private channels.

This isn't necessarily corruption. It's the predictable outcome of governance systems designed for legitimacy rather than efficacy. The goal isn't to make good decisions—it's to make decisions that appear legitimate, that provide legal and social cover for the people actually in control.

Real governance happens in group chats, on calls, in the spaces between formal proposals. The on-chain votes are theatre, important theatre, but theatre nonetheless.

Acknowledging this isn't cynical—it's the first step toward honest system design. Some decisions benefit from broad input and transparent process. Others need speed and expertise. Pretending otherwise doesn't create decentralization; it creates plausible deniability.