Recently, I've been looking at governance voting again, and the more I look, the more it feels like writing a love poem: everyone says "community decision," but in reality, the ones who actually make the final decision are often those few large delegated votes. Honestly, token governance doesn't control the protocol; it controls people's inertia — I won't vote anymore, just find a "representative" to click once, and in the end, the representative becomes a oligarch, and the process is quite clean.

What's more subtle is the reflexivity of emotions: when testnet incentives and token expectations heat up, the group starts guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens, and voting suddenly becomes "meaningful" — like... or rather... a collective rain prayer. But once the hype subsides, delegation continues to snowball, and governance turns into a ritual that seems participatory.

Now I just do it mechanically: I vote for proposals I genuinely care about, and for others, I prefer not to touch them, to avoid casually throwing away power like trash. As for risks, everyone understands, they just don't want to admit it.