The paradox of community governance is worth following. When certain members push agendas under the name of "community proposals," everything seems to be on-chain at first glance – but you can't tell who the proposer is at all.

Ironically, some platforms claim to be completely decentralized, but their governance power structures suggest otherwise. For example, the governance tokens of certain popular ecological platforms are still controlled by specific parties, rather than genuinely owned by a DAO. This phenomenon has led to several risk events in the past.

If more projects could fully transfer core governance rights to DAOs, truly achieving program ownership decentralization like Metaplex, many past ecological crises could actually be avoided. The original intention of on-chain governance is transparency and decentralization, but if participants' identities are unclear and decision-making processes are opaque, the so-called "decentralization" becomes a beautiful lie.