Recently, governance data has been a bit awkward again: Delegated voting was originally a "lazy person's blessing," basically handing over votes to those who understand. But when I click in, the top addresses move slightly, and the proposals are almost decided... I’ve been comparing net fund flows and active addresses. It’s lively, but the actual rules-changing power still resides with just a few addresses. Later, I realized the problem isn’t just about "who understands better," but that the distribution of costs is too concentrated; delegation just packages this concentration more neatly.

These days, everyone is comparing RWA, especially U.S. Treasury yields, to on-chain yield products. I can understand the anxiety: on-chain yields seem more "free," but after governance becomes oligarchic, who is writing and changing the yield rules? That’s not very reassuring. Anyway, when I look at governance now, I don’t listen to slogans first. I focus on where the votes come from and where they flow to, and then slowly align the data.