Recently, I saw a bunch of governance proposals again. On the surface, it's a public vote, but when I clicked in: major holders delegate their votes to a few people, and in the end, it becomes "a small group of representatives making decisions for everyone." To put it plainly, governance tokens don't govern the "community," but attention and networks; whoever can get delegated votes, who has a loud voice in the group, is like a temporary board of directors.

What's more awkward is that many people, holding votes, are too lazy to research, and just delegate based on a celebrity’s word, similar to Meme's attention shifts: everyone’s involved when it's hot, everyone leaves when it's cold, but the proposals left behind have to bear the long-term blame. Veteran players advise newcomers not to take the last step, and I think governance is the same—don't mistake "participation" for real power.

Next time, I might first check: whether the proposal is clearly written, where the execution authority lies, whether the delegate has a historical record… Do you delegate votes for convenience, or do you really think it can check the power of the oligarchs?