Before the fork, I noticed that the kinds of complaints you mentioned in your post were rampant. There was a lot of criticism being thrown around due to differences in users' opinions. Now that we’ve split from the other side of the group, it seems we still have similar criticisms toward those in leadership positions or positions of power, though it’s not as intense as it used to be. I suppose that wherever governance is involved, there will always be opposing sides to maintain balance.

Although it may seem like we are clashing over ideas or opinions, I believe it’s a healthy way to hold each other accountable. It can also raise awareness about specific issues and encourage changes, even if the impact is small. I don’t expect significant changes to happen overnight on this platform. I’d rather we proceed cautiously and avoid rushing into things.

Your discussion about monopoly and the examples you shared are starting to make me realize how users—especially those with small balances—can actually make a difference. Theoretically, it’s possible for a large group of users with small balances to have a significant impact on the platform. The blockchain itself is designed to accommodate everyone, regardless of account value. However, many users are opting out or ignoring the platform’s governance because they feel their votes don’t carry enough weight to make a difference—when, in reality, that’s far from the truth. If only the majority of users realized their collective power as a community then the platform would have been a much better place.

Nowadays, it doesn’t seem like there’s an influencer or a strong personality who can rally users to act collectively toward a common goal. It feels like most of us are working independently, each pursuing what we think will benefit our personal goals on the platform.