Why do I question Binance? And why is the Pancake governance voting behavior dangerous 1、 Why question? Someone asked me: Binance only participates in Pancake's governance voting, why do you want to go online? What I want to say is simple: I am not questioning whether Binance has "voting rights", I am questioning what it has done with "voting". It needs to be clarified that this time, it is not a 'yes' or' no 'vote for a certain proposal, but a vote to' end the governance mechanism itself '. Binance used its own wallet to lock up 25 million CAKE, instantly becoming the largest voting party, just to kill a DAO (Cakepie) it didn't like, and immediately unlock and exit after voting, without bearing any lock up or long-term governance costs. This is not governance, to be precise, it is an institutional cleaning packaged in a governance shell. I think what needs to be wary of is the signal conveyed behind this: whoever is not part of centralized power, who is not one's own people, can be systematically removed without any warning. It is not opposing a proposal, it changes the meaning of the entire governance mechanism itself. 2、 Why is it dangerous? What is the original intention of decentralized governance? In theory, he is a long-term lock up, consensus collective construction, and collaborative game. Instead of allowing a giant with resources and rules to enter at any time, seize power and leave, harvesting the efforts and trust of all true participants. This is not governance, this is coercive rule. The significance of governance is to give every individual and every lock keeper a little bit of power to participate in the future. If there is no participation, only rule, this Web3 imperialism, what do we want it to do? If this is not questioned, what is left of Web3? I have never denied the driving role of Binance in the cryptocurrency industry. On the contrary, precisely because it has such influence, it should abide by the boundaries of governance and accept supervision and questioning from the community. If a platform is both a controller of resources and a designer of rules, and can even intervene in governance structures at any time to determine its fate, then it must face a question: are you a participant in governance or a controller of governance? What I question is whether Binance is abusing its poor resources, status, and information to change institutional boundaries, suppress community checks and balances, and ultimately destroy the institutional trust that should have been built together 3、 Why speak up? Even in the Web2 world, it's not always the one with the most money who can terminate the rules themselves. We still have laws, media, public opinion, and government agencies to balance capital and power. In places like Web3 that lack regulation, our only bottom line and weapon are the voice of the community, the right to question, and the freedom to criticize. If we don't even have this, then we are not participants, but just "livestock" kept under platform rules, just "lambs" waiting to be washed and harvested. Today I choose to question, not to oppose any particular project or platform, but to defend the little bit of existence and dignity that every ordinary participant has in decentralized governance. I cannot accept a Web3 without rules, boundaries, public opinion space, or any resistance mechanism. If all power is concentrated in the hands of a few people and all dissent is seen as disrupting order, then this Web3 is not a true Web3. I even believe that we must retain the 'power of questioning' and continue to strengthen it, because this may be the last moat of this industry, not to confront anyone, but to tell the capital side with power: there are still people here who believe in consensus and believe that institutions are not just empty words. Please do not act recklessly on Binance, please respect the system, respect the community, that's all.