Lately I've been looking at governance votes on a few protocols again, and the more I look, the more I feel that "delegation" is pretty much like handing over the remote control to someone else: you think you're saving trouble, but in the end, it's always the same few people pressing the channels. To put it plainly, governance tokens are often not about "everyone governing together," but about "who can hold the voting power long-term, and who can mobilize votes," governing the rules themselves and resource distribution.

My current approach is pretty simple: if I can avoid delegating, I do; if I really need to delegate, I only give it to someone whose records I can follow closely, and I withdraw and reassign the vote periodically so it doesn't become a default option. Also, in proposals that mention "urgent upgrade/fast approval," I first check the patch rhythm and historical incidents to see if they're using risk as an excuse to increase power.

By the way, the NFT royalty disputes also seem quite similar: creators want income, markets want liquidity, but ultimately, the rules are decided by platforms and a few major players. Anyway, I'm now somewhat immune to the hype that "governance = decentralization"... that's all for now.