Lately, I've been feeling a bit discouraged about governance voting: they say "everyone decides together," but in the end, a bunch of votes are delegated away, leaving only a few big holders/institutions nodding or shaking their heads. Who exactly is the token governing? Honestly, it's mostly about managing the protocol's budget and roadmap, but the execution power still resides with those who can access information and allocate resources.

Adding to that, there's been a lot of noise recently about staking and shared security "profit stacking" schemes, which has been quite heated. I'm actually more concerned: will these new incentives ultimately be easily taken by delegates? Ordinary people only see the annualized numbers, but the governance direction is narrowing more and more... My current rule for myself is: avoid delegating if possible; if I must delegate, only choose those who can consistently explain their reasons and dare to oppose proposals, and switch them out after a while. Someone even complained that "voting feels as exhausting as doing risk control," but I can't help it—being lazy once might mean being represented forever.