Recently, I've been looking at governance votes for several projects again, and the more I look, the more it seems like a "circle of trust in delegated voting"… People say everyone has a voice, but in the end, votes are often handed to a few familiar faces. Everyone just wants to save effort; I've done it too. So what’s the result? Who is the proposal really governing? It seems it's not the protocol itself, but the emotions: retail investors vote and feel like they've participated, but the real decision-makers are still those big households/institutions.

These days, ETF capital flows and U.S. stock risk appetite are often used as all-purpose explanations. I pay attention to that too, but I care more about another undercurrent: when the market heats up, delegation becomes more concentrated; when the market cools down, everyone becomes lazier about managing. It’s easy to open windows and turn off lights in a greenhouse, but the hardest part is not to keep handing the keys to the same person all the time. Anyway, I can now vote myself if I understand, and if I don’t, I’ll vote less—at least I won’t pretend that “we decide together.”