When it comes to project governance and operations, it really depends on actual participation and mechanism design—this directly relates to the token's real value.

Take $WAL as an example. So far, seven proposals have been implemented. At first glance, that's quite a few, but the approval rate is only about 40%, which reveals quite clear disagreements within the community. The latest proposal to adjust the staking reward release cycle is a case in point, with opposition votes reaching 35%. Although it was ultimately approved, this nearly quarter opposition indicates that consensus isn't very strong.

Participating in voting requires staking at least 5000 tokens—this requirement is indeed a bit high for many retail investors. Small holders are kept out, and large holders naturally have more influence. Such mechanism design, to some extent, weakens the representativeness of governance.

Interestingly, the contract has a 48-hour cooling-off period. Compared to other projects, this duration is quite long. It might impact efficiency a bit, but it also provides space for thorough discussion. At least it prevents hasty decisions.

Where's the problem? Recently, the participation rate in three consecutive proposal votes has remained around 15%. Such a level of engagement is honestly a bit concerning. If governance tokens truly can't achieve higher participation, their value support can easily be drained—because the core value of the tokens lies in governance rights.