Governance seems more like a cost than a benefit if you ask me. It’s more work than creating a trading strategy and you only get paid for the work you do if a governance mechanism you propose is adopted and it makes you more money than you would have otherwise made by trading.
Governance requires cooperation / coordination. This is a cost investment of time and energy. If you are in the minority opinion and cannot effect change that is financially beneficial to you then that investment is a loss. If you are in the majority but the time and resources required to effect governance that is financially beneficial to you is greater than the benefit you receive then that investment is a loss. Being a trader on a exchange doesn’t impose this cost because there is no need to engage in politics to make money. Instead you make money by trading assets.
It seems like there would need to be some non-monetary incentives at play which would lead to effectual governance of a monetary asset.
Stablecoins seem to violate the laws of classical economics in the same way that relativistic muon’s generated in the Earth’s upper atmosphere hitting detectors on earth seem to violate the laws of Newtonian physics.
Without time dilation and length contraction given to us by Einstein’s relativity there are no muon’s hitting detectors here on earth.
Without “magic internet money doohickey thingy” there are no stablecoins that make issuers money.
Whats the magic? That’s the part I seem to not be understanding.