Lately, the more I watch governance voting, the more it seems like "delegation = entrusted mental capacity"... You just hand your vote to a few big accounts, basically for convenience, but in the end, are the proposals really about "governance protocol" or about "governance retail investors' patience"? I'm a bit confused. Especially since many people don't usually check the forums, and on voting day, they delegate with a single click, resulting in a few addresses making the decisions. It's not surprising that it becomes oligarchic.

I thought delegated voting was meant to increase participation, but it actually seems to make the concentration of power smoother: big players/institutions have research teams, small investors just "follow the big guys." Plus, with everyone recently complaining about validator income, MEV, and fairness in transaction ordering, you'll realize that "on-chain fairness" is sometimes not a technical issue but a matter of who is pressing the buttons.

Anyway, I currently have a simple trick: for proposals involving fee distribution or incentive changes that directly affect LPs, I’d rather withdraw half my position and wait and see, even if it means earning a bit less in fees. Once the discussion is clear, I’ll come back to participate, rather than jumping into the water on the day of the biggest turbulence.