Recently, I’ve been watching governance votes for several projects, and the more I look, the more it resembles a neighborhood homeowners' association: the group chats are arguing fiercely every day, and when it comes to voting day, many people directly delegate their votes to “friends” or big stakeholders. It’s convenient, yes, but in the end, it’s pretty obvious who’s really calling the shots. Governance tokens are said to be “everyone governing together,” but honestly, it’s more like deciding “who will represent everyone in governing,” and once someone becomes a representative, it tends to lead to oligarchy...

Now I can somewhat understand why, when the fee rate hits an extreme, the community starts guessing whether it’s a reversal or just more bubble squeezing: when emotions are at their extremes, everyone wants a definitive answer, so they’re more likely to “delegate” their judgment as well. Anyway, I still believe in it—at least having the rules on the chain is better than a black box—but I also care more about: who is the delegation chain ultimately connected to. That’s all for now.