The latest voting results from Aave DAO have sparked industry discussions. Behind the 55% opposition votes, it reflects a long-standing awkward reality in the DeFi ecosystem: the community often lacks preparation and confidence when it comes to making real decisions.

Many people oversimplify "decentralization," thinking it simply means giving everyone a voice. But the reality is much more complex. Taking leading DeFi protocols like Aave as an example, from early operations, core decision-making power still resides with the project team and large token holders. Ordinary participants are used to following along, and when suddenly asked to make decisions themselves, hesitation naturally arises. It's like someone who has long relied on external guidance being suddenly pushed into a decision-making seat—their first reaction is often not to take initiative, but to hold back.

A deeper issue is that DeFi's decentralized governance lacks a supporting mechanism for risk bearing. For example, in this case of handling brand assets, on the surface, it appears to return power to the community. In reality, the community must shoulder responsibilities such as brand management, public opinion handling, and team costs—yet the proposal provides little detail on how these costs and responsibilities are divided. Without clear risk mitigation, the community will naturally choose to be conservative. This is not true decentralized empowerment; it’s more like shifting the burden elsewhere.

Compared to some more mature governance protocols, their ability to promote community participation hinges on establishing clear incentive structures and risk divisions. This gives participants enough confidence and assurance, turning decentralization from a slogan into tangible action.