Lately, I've been feeling a bit powerless when it comes to governance voting. They say it's "community governance," but most of the votes are held by just a few addresses. The rest are either too lazy to vote or simply delegate their votes to "reliable representatives." To be honest, delegation was originally meant to save effort, but it has ended up making oligarchs even more comfortable: you hand over your vote, which essentially means you default to their stance in the future, even if you haven't read the proposal details.

What's more subtle is that many people are focused on testnet incentives and token expectations, doing tasks while guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens. When it comes time to vote, they become indifferent... Who exactly does governance tokens really govern? It feels more like governing "liquidity" and "narratives" rather than the product itself.

My current approach is pretty simple: I avoid delegating if I can, and for proposals I don't understand, I abstain. At least I won't turn my small vote into leverage for others. Anyway, I won't talk more about this now. I'll keep watching on-chain fund flows to see where the money is going—that's more practical.