Recently, I looked over the governance records of a few protocols again. To put it simply, delegated voting was initially meant to allow "lazy people to participate," but it’s increasingly looking like votes are being pushed into a few large wallet accounts... The tokens claim to be decentralized, but in reality, the governance might be controlled by the few most active (and best at soliciting votes) representatives. If you don't delegate, your vote becomes useless; if you do delegate, your voting power becomes even more concentrated, which feels quite awkward.

Now I usually glance at governance proposals first: who posted them, who is voting, and where the votes are coming from. It’s not that representatives are necessarily bad, but the path toward oligarchy is really too smooth, especially when it comes to adjusting key parameters, it feels like watching a "meeting of a few people." On the macro side, they’re still arguing about rate cut expectations and the dollar index moving with risk assets, but on-chain, it’s a different kind of “synchronization”: when sentiment shifts, votes tend to follow suit.

I'm a bit tired but still hanging in there, at least treating delegation as a form of risk management: regularly changing representatives, diversifying delegations, checking the discussion forums for genuine opposition before proposing... for now, that’s how I’ll do it.