I feel like, for a lot of governance tokens, what “governance” is really about right now is mainly a few big holders/proxies, right? It’s not a conspiracy theory—once delegated voting is rolled out, in the end it turns into a small number of addresses just clicking buttons, while ordinary people can at most contribute a nominal sense of participation. I’ve looked at a few proposals; the discussion area gets quite heated, but the moment you actually reach the on-chain vote, once the pooled votes/“vote pile” is wiped out, it’s over… To put it simply, the process is very democratic, but the result is very oligarchic.

What I care about more is: how deeply are these big votes tied to liquidity pools, stablecoin minting and redemption, and fee distribution—if they’re tied too deeply, governance easily becomes “protecting positions.” Recently, in that kind of extreme state with funding rates, people in the group are arguing whether to reverse it or keep squeezing the bubble; I’d actually look first at who received delegations at the same time, and who suddenly becomes actively proposing— the hotter the emotions, the more it looks like they’re grabbing the steering wheel. Anyway, I don’t vote very impulsively now; I’d rather be half a beat slow, and only talk after I’ve seen it clearly.