Last night, I looked into the governance voting of a certain protocol, and the more I read, the more uncomfortable I felt: everyone talks about "community co-governance," but in reality, many votes are actually delegated, and in the end, they end up in the hands of a few people or institutions. To put it plainly, the governance tokens might not be controlling the protocol parameters, but rather people's attention and emotions—what you think you're participating in is actually just stamping approval on the decisions of oligarchs.

I'm not completely against delegation either; ordinary people don't have the time to study proposals every day, so it's normal to leave it to "those who seem to understand." But the risks are also quite straightforward: if the delegation chain is long, you can't see clearly who is coordinating behind the scenes, who is getting incentives, or who is tied to market-making or lending positions... It’s a bit like MEV strategies—taking a roundabout route, with the main point being who ends up taking the profit.

Recently, there's been talk about interest rate cut expectations, the US dollar index, and how risk assets rise and fall together—like a "macro-wide sync" across the entire network. Governance is somewhat similar: proposals pass when sentiment is high, and when sentiment drops, even good modifications are ignored. My current approach is: if I can vote myself, I do; if I really delegate, I try to diversify as much as possible—at least don’t give all your votes to a "celebrity address." That’s it for now.