Recently, I've been looking at governance voting again, and the more I look, the more anxious I get... To put it simply, delegated voting was originally meant to solve "I don't have time," but it gradually turned into "Everyone else don't vote, I'll vote for you," and in the end, a few people combining their addresses just pass the proposal. The tokens are labeled "governance," but who exactly is being governed? Sometimes it feels like they're giving long-term worker badges to those who are best at canvassing and writing proposals.

What's even more outrageous is that outside, people are still using ETF capital flow and U.S. stock market risk appetite to explain the rise and fall of the crypto market. I'm not saying there's no relation at all, but on-chain governance simply doesn't look at macro factors... If you want me to believe in "community consensus," then the voting rights being concentrated like liquidity makes me feel pretty uncomfortable.

I'm still holding on to the belief: at least make delegated voting transparent, revocable, and clearly state the voting motivation, so people can feel less powerless about being represented. That's all for now.