Recently, watching governance votes is a bit like watching a spectrum: on the surface, a bunch of colors and lively activity, but the real decision of "which way to lean" is still determined by a few brighter beams of light. Delegated voting was originally meant to be convenient, but as it goes, it turns into "handing your vote to someone you know / big accounts," and then everyone discusses consensus in the comment section, while on-chain the results are different... It's quite subtle.

Testnet incentives and point expectations are the same; everyone is guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens, and when voting, it's easier to entrust the choice to "people who seem more knowledgeable." Forget it, to put it plainly: governance tokens often don't actually govern the protocol, they first govern the holders themselves—wrapping laziness as efficiency, and following as participation. Right now, I only vote on two or three issues myself, and for the rest, I prefer to abstain, not wanting to turn "I don't know either" into someone else's authority.