Actually, everyone understands that often governance tokens don't really govern the protocol; they just control voting rights for a few people. Recently, I looked at the delegation voting panels of several projects, and the top ten addresses/delegators' share is obvious as soon as you look at it. On the surface, it seems quite "decentralized," but in reality, it looks more like an oligarchic council... I also use delegation to save time, but every time I click confirm, I feel uneasy: am I participating in governance, or am I outsourcing my power to someone who’s better at writing tweets?

What's more awkward is that when the funding rate hits an extreme, the group chat starts arguing again—"Is the reversal coming or is the bubble still being squeezed?" Meanwhile, on-chain governance is eerily quiet, proposals are approved, votes are cast, completely detached from market sentiment. Honestly, people are very sensitive when trading, but during governance, they just assume "it won't be my turn to make the decision anyway." I don't have any clever tricks either; at least for now, my approach is: delegation is fine, but for key proposals like changing parameters or distributing funds, I will withdraw my vote and vote myself. If I make a mistake, so be it—at least it’s my own mistake.