On-chain cryptocurrency governance is an example of plutocracy.

I believe that decentralised governance is no more than a plutocracy for it is governed by the stake of the wealthy.

Coin/Token-weighted votes favour the rich and is a regression back from one person one vote. If simple verification cannot be done, most cryptocurrency do not have the suitability to become a global standard for governance. It will be more unfair than the current voting systems in place, for one can directly buy votes legally. A one token one vote system is therefore unsuitable to determine a community's choice or stake in the project.

There is more to involvement than financial ownership in governance. Would you support if people can only vote if they own landed property? After all, by such systems, a citizen that owns no land holds no stake in the country and should not be given the power to decide the government that will perform the financial decisions.

This can result in underrepresentation of the poor, and can even pose a security risk. When was the last time you have seen a Chinese, Indian or South East Asian (except Singapore) node make governance decisions on cryptocurrency chains? These regions hold 4 billion people combined which is about half the world population, yet majority of activity occurs in the US, EU, Japan and South Korea which holds less than a fifth of the global population.

The security risk also comes into play if a rich person is willing to buy governance tokens. For example, if I were to spend U$10⁶ on purchashing moons, the polls would always be in my favour. Of course, polls on r/CryptoCurrency do not impact any real life policies, but in this case it shows the unsuitability of token based governance in real world scenarios.

A group of malicious actors can easily perform a 51% attack if the remaining population have voting apathy. This is increasingly possible given increasing income inequality (8 men own more than bottom 50%). Capitalism does not work to streamline democracy. I believe that it commodifies the individual vote, and turns it into something that can be traded. Token based governance might be the catalyst for a CBDC-voting governance dystopia.

I am open to this community's opinions and reasoning and while this post can be contrary to the ideal beliefs of this subreddit, I would welcome and challenge readers here to possibly change my viewpoint and have a productive discussion.