If I were @metaplex, here's how I'd fix the low voter turnout and low alignment. Inspired by Solana's model. 1. Implement a lockup for staking, at least 15 days. This prevents attacks where you do something that will short-term pump the token, then immediately sell. 2. Stakers must stake to a builder entity (similar to a validator). These should be selected by having some minimum MPLX stake, and are actually users of the protocol. Tensor, Magic Eden, Pump, Phantom, Solfalre, etc. Foundation should give them stake if they need it. The idea is you want highly educated technical participants who are aligned with the future of the protocol. Not short term gain like pumping your liquidity pool. 3. Stakers earn some yield in $MPLX if and only if they (or their assigned entity) vote in the last 2/4 proposals. They can override their assigned entity's vote. Assigned entity gets a % of the yield as well as commission. 4. (optional) Protocol revenue could be used to buy MPLX and fund emissions instead of inflating the token. Though it may be better to just put revenue into growth. This ensures alignment with token holders and at the very least, the people using the smart contracts. It notably doesn't ensure alignment with actual NFT holders, but that's a harder problem to solve that involves somehow getting holders some MPLX. I suspect this setup would have prevented the travesty that is this latest vote. As long term builders on token-metadata don't want the users getting their SOL yoinked for the sake of the liquidity of some token they don't care about. As a builder I feel pretty powerless, like I have no voice in the current governance. Whereas with this setup, maybe the company I work for would be active in the governance decisions as we use these protocols.