Last night, I stared at the governance forum for a long time, my eyes tired and my neck stiff... I originally wanted to understand whether "delegated voting" is more about convenience or laziness, basically just handing over votes to those who are better speakers or more diligent. The more I looked, the more it seemed like oligarchization: big holders, funds, a few permanent representatives swapping names back and forth, and in the end, how proposals pass is basically decided by just a few.

What’s more subtle is that many people talk about "community governance," but what’s actually being governed might be parameters and retail investor sentiment... Recently, there’s been debate over validator income, MEV, and fairness in ordering. I can understand; when on-chain rules change, the first to be affected in terms of rewards and experience are often the smaller players. Anyway, my current habit is: when I see projects with highly concentrated delegated addresses, I slow down first, review the team, contract permissions, unlocks, and competitors, and don’t rush to pick a side. After all, whoever holds the votes, that’s whose voice the project will listen to. That’s it for now.