Lately I've been looking at a few governance proposals again, and the more I look, the more I feel that "delegated voting" is quite two-faced: it’s really convenient, and the participation rate looks good, but in the end, it often turns into the influence of just a few people plus a bunch of people defaulting to follow the vote. To put it plainly, who exactly are governance tokens governing? Sometimes it seems more like governing "attention" and "social relationships" rather than the protocol itself.

What I don't regret is that I forced myself to go through the voting process myself before, even if my vote was small, at least I knew what button I was pressing. Now I prefer to only vote on proposals where I understand the risk boundaries, and for others, I won't pretend to understand.

By the way, about the recent extreme funding rate wave, whether the group is arguing about reversal or continuing to squeeze the bubble, it also looks quite like a governance scenario to me: everyone discusses the direction verbally, but in practice, everyone is betting on "who looks more like the majority." Anyway, I’ll go over my delegation list again, so "peace of mind" doesn’t turn into "being represented."