Regarding stablecoin governance, should everything be decided by voting? My answer is: Absolutely not. Many people, when discussing decentralization, reflexively demand "complete democracy." But in the world of stablecoins, excessive democracy is often not liberation, but self-destruction. I looked at @stbl_official's governance design. What alarmed me most, and what I agree with most, is not the amount of power it grants to the DAO, but rather its clearly defined boundaries of power. It's very clearly defined—🌟 You can discuss fees, incentives, and parameter configurations; But there are two things that no one can touch: Redemption logic and the pegging mechanism. Why this? 🤔 History has already provided the answer. When UST ran into trouble, the community didn't remain silent; on the contrary, it was unusually active. Proposals poured in, rules were revised again and again, everyone wanted to save it. The result was that panic entered the protocol through voting, and emotions were amplified through governance, ultimately accelerating the bleeding instead of stopping it. STBL's approach may seem cold, but it's clear-headed. The 1:1 redemption isn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of survival. It exists like gravity; it shouldn't be voted on, it shouldn't be open to discussion. When a crisis occurs, the protocol shouldn't "discuss what to do," but should execute established rules like a machine. Because in critical moments, human emotions are always more dangerous than algorithms. Therefore, I don't believe STBL is weakening the community. It's doing the exact opposite—protecting the protocol from the corruption of human nature. It welds the core foundation of survival in place, keeping uncertainty out of the system. It allows discussion, but it doesn't allow shaking the foundation. This unwavering, steadfast certainty is what truly makes the RWA stablecoin reassuring. @stbl_official @avtarsehra #STBL #USST #RWA #Stablecoin #DeFi #Governance