Lately, I've been looking at several DAO delegated votes, and the more I watch, the weirder it seems: people talk about "increasing participation," but fewer people are actually participating, just concentrating votes into the hands of a few regular representatives. No matter how beautifully the proposals are written, in the end, it looks like a few people calculating and incentivizing each other, while ordinary token holders are more like "I'm too lazy to look, anyway, you vote for me."

Forget it, speaking plainly: who exactly is governance tokens actually governing? It often feels like it's more about "who's better at getting authorization, who can maintain their persona," rather than the long-term interests of the protocol itself. Especially when market funding rates are extreme, and the community is arguing whether to reverse or continue squeezing the bubble, governance seems more like being hijacked by emotions: either rushing to change the rules or pretending to be dead and dragging it out.

Right now, I prefer to go slower: not delegating lightly, and if I do delegate, I regularly withdraw and re-delegate; otherwise, I might inadvertently contribute to oligarchization.