Last night before bed, I browsed the governance forum, and the more I looked, the more I felt that "delegated voting" is essentially just outsourcing the hassle of a bunch of retail investors to a few acquaintances/celebrities. On the surface, participation rates go up, but once you break down the internal structure: whoever gets the most delegated votes becomes the de facto "voting gateway," and in the end, governance tokens might be controlled not by the protocol itself, but by the voting channels and narratives.

What's even more awkward is that many people delegate and then ignore it, relying basically on trust for how the delegate votes, whether there's any conflict of interest, and so on. Then the community just uses "everyone voted" as legitimacy... It's a bit like diluting responsibility.

Recently, the NFT royalty debate also feels similar: creators want ongoing income, the market wants liquidity, and in the end, the rules are often decided by just a few platforms/aggregators saying the word. If governance turns into "a few people making decisions for everyone," then even a dispersed token distribution is pointless. Anyway, I now find myself looking at voting records more than slogans.