Is delegated voting really just outsourcing "community governance" to a few people? The more I look at it, the more I feel that governance tokens often don't actually govern the protocol—they just feed our retail investors' illusions: those votes you hold are ultimately delegated for convenience and simplicity, and then gradually accumulate into the voices of a few large addresses.

Recently, someone has been watching large on-chain transfers and unusual activity in exchange hot and cold wallets, calling them "smart money," and the comment section is flocking to interpret it... I also get tempted, but thinking about applying the same logic to governance: you see an "authoritative address" move, and you think it represents the correct direction. Anyway, my current note says: if you don't understand, don't vote; if you're unhappy, withdraw your delegation. Don't use "participating in governance" to add drama for yourself—prioritize survival first.