First of all, it's to provide the project team with witch indicators, which is indeed very practical. Then, it's about the project team giving themselves airdrops; I was really stunned by this move, giving themselves airdrops, impressive. There's also providing tools for large holders to perform governance attacks, which is even more ruthless.

As for us small and medium holders participating in the voting process, it's really too real. Basically, we see someone in the group say that this vote might become an airdrop indicator, and then we quickly go find the voting webpage to see which option has the most votes and choose that one.

To be honest, this is the reality; everyone is thinking about whether they can get in on the action and grab some airdrops through voting. Who really studies those governance proposals in detail? Just following the option with the most votes has become standard practice.