When I look at WAL governance, early token concentration is the first structural risk I consider. If early backers or team-linked wallets retain outsized voting power, governance can drift toward insider priorities, even without bad intent.
That’s not unique to Walrus, but it’s a reality that must be actively managed. The counterweight is not promises, but mechanisms. Time-based vesting, delegation, quorum requirements, and transparent proposal histories all matter.
From my Viewpoint, legitimacy comes when insiders are structurally unable to dominate outcomes without broad participation. Governance credibility is earned gradually through restraint, not launch distributions.
