Lately I've been looking into delegation voting again, and the more I look, the more it seems like "participating in governance" is being outsourced to a few people. Frankly, the governance tokens ultimately don't control the protocol itself, but rather the ranking and distribution of rewards among large token holders. The small amount of votes ordinary people hold either makes them too lazy to vote or just serves as a background presence; no matter how well-written the proposals are, it still comes down to who can sway the incentives in their favor.

What's even more amusing is that when a major public chain is about to upgrade or undergo maintenance, the community is guessing whether the project will migrate. I looked through some related proposals—one page discussing "user experience," and ten pages debating "how to allocate the funds and who will manage them"... Whether they migrate or not is another matter, but the budget is locked in first. A delegate says, "I represent the community," and a bunch of likes follow, just like a company meeting where votes are raised by hand.

Next time, I might stop paying attention to the voting results and instead focus on the delegation network and budget flow; will you delegate your votes to "active representatives," or just abstain and remain transparent?