Recently, I've seen people tie ETF capital flows and risk appetite in the US stock market together for interpretation, as if crypto price movements are just a switch... I'm more concerned about on-chain matters that are "settled without arguments": the more convenient delegated voting is, the more it ultimately resembles a few major players pressing the buttons for everyone. They call it governance tokens, but in reality, governance might just be "who can rally votes better / who gets the big investors' delegations," with ordinary people mostly just emotionally participating.

Forget it, speaking plainly: you think you're voting, but you're actually choosing someone to vote on your behalf, and that person then aligns with a few other big accounts. In the long run, this could turn the protocol into an oligarchic club, and even with more incentive design spending, it’s easy to go off course. My approach is rather cautious: for new protocols, I first look at delegation concentration and proposal participation structure; if it’s too one-sided, I stay out to avoid turning "governance" into a spectator sport.