Recently reviewed several governance voting records, and the more I look, the more it seems like the "delegation" feature itself is accelerating oligarchization: people find it troublesome and just delegate with one click to big holders/institutions, and no matter how beautiful the proposal is written, in reality, it’s just a few people giving the nod. Who exactly does governance tokens govern? Honestly, it’s probably the small investors’ time costs and attention... If you don’t watch it, you’re implicitly being represented.

And lately, in some regions, taxes and compliance are tightening and loosening intermittently, causing deposit and withdrawal expectations to shift. On-chain voting participation immediately becomes more laid-back: people are busy figuring out how to transfer funds safely, who’s got time to read your proposal text.

Forget it, speaking plainly: delegated voting was originally meant to be convenient, but after taking shortcuts, it’s also lost the “decision-making power.” Now, when I see a vote, my first reaction isn’t whether the stance is right, but: who’s actually behind this vote, and who can revoke the delegation at any time. Anyway, I’ll hold back on the narrative that “governance can save everything.”