Lately I've been looking at governance votes on a few protocols again, and honestly, many people holding governance tokens haven't really "governed" much: either they're too lazy to research and just delegate to big accounts, or they simply follow whoever has the loudest voice. The result is that the more centralized the delegation, the more it resembles an oligarch club; proposal discussions look lively, but ultimately the decision-makers are just a few hands.

What's more awkward is that everyone relies heavily on on-chain data tools and tagging systems to judge "who the big accounts are," but it's not surprising that these tools are questioned for being lagging or even misleading... You might think it's a long-term builder, but just switching to a different pseudonym can turn them into a different face. Anyway, my expectations for governance tokens are quite low now; I’d rather treat them as a form of risk exposure: participate if you can, but don’t expect voting power to equal influence. Bull or bear markets, it’s the same—if you can avoid being driven by emotions, you’re already halfway to winning.