It feels like governance tokens ultimately are "governing the emotions of retail investors like me." When it's really time to change the rules, voting rights have already been delegated back and forth, and gradually only a few big accounts are making the decisions. To put it simply, delegated voting was originally meant to be convenient, but it also easily turns the initial participation—cold start—into a quick path to oligarchy.

Now, when I look at governance of new chains/new protocols, I focus on two things: the concentration of delegated voting, and who holds key permissions (upgrades, vaults, bridges). Recently, people have been comparing on-chain yield products with RWA (real-world assets) or even US Treasury yields. I can understand the desire for "visible returns," but no matter how high the yields are, they can't prevent a one-sided governance where, after changing the rules, you can't even cast an opposition vote... Anyway, I treat it as a risk factor—if I can avoid delegating, I avoid it; if I really vote, I just focus on those few proposals, vote, and then withdraw.