Lately, the more I watch governance voting, the more uncomfortable I feel: a bunch of people delegate their votes, and in the end, it just turns into a few big accounts "representing public opinion." Frankly, governance tokens don't actually govern the protocol; they just reflect the laziness and fear of trouble among token holders... I admit, sometimes I find researching proposals too tiring and just want to delegate with a click. As a result, I drew a relationship diagram on-chain and found that the same group of wallets keeps circling around, and their voting power is no different from that of oligarchs.

What's even more ridiculous is that once testnet incentives and point expectations come out, everyone prefers to focus on guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens, rather than voting. Voting? Let's put it aside for now. Anyway, I’ve set a rule for myself: delegation is okay, but I must at least review every major proposal once. Even if I end up voting yes or abstain, I need to know who I am handing my power to.