Recently, I've been looking at governance voting again, and the more I look, the more it seems like "delegated voting = lending your steering wheel to someone else to drive"… It’s called decentralization, but most votes are concentrated in the hands of a few large holders/institutions. No matter how beautiful the proposal is written, in the end, it’s just their preferences being calibrated against each other.

Who exactly does governance tokens govern? Honestly, it might be more about governing "liquidity" and "narrative," rather than governing the protocol itself.

Then these days, before and after a major chain upgrade, everyone in the group is guessing whether the ecosystem will migrate. I think whether it migrates or not isn’t that important; what matters is that once migration/not migration is used as a voting chip, the longer the delegation chain, the easier it is for a minority to "speak with a unified voice."
I can only patch things myself: before delegating, carefully check the proxy’s historical votes and interests. If it doesn’t look right, I’d rather not vote at all. That’s how I start.