Lately, governance has been a bit frustrating: a bunch of people delegate their votes and then act as if they are participating, basically packaging their voting power and handing it over to a few "professional representatives." Then, in proposals, the budget is written in a flashy way, with impulsive goals and vague KPIs. Who's actually governing? Not the community, but those few who receive the delegations are in control.

What's even more amusing is that whenever there's a large on-chain transfer or movement of hot and cold wallets on exchanges, some people interpret it as "smart money," and then use that as a basis for governance arguments: "Look, the funds are moving like this or that..." Please, wallet movements don't necessarily indicate the right direction.

This isn't something that requires talent over the long term; it's just a habit: I now always ask myself three questions before voting—who gets the money, how will it be spent, and who is responsible. If I can't answer, I oppose. Even if my vote is small, I see myself as a gatekeeper. That's how I'll start.