Lately I've been looking at governance votes for a few protocols, and the more I look, the more uncomfortable I feel: on one hand, they say "community decision," and on the other hand, everyone delegates their votes to a few big accounts, which ultimately turns into those few people nodding and shaking their heads. Honestly, many governance tokens don't actually govern the "protocol," but rather the holders with large balances, loud voices, and access to information asymmetry.

Actually, I'm not completely against delegation; it's normal for retail investors to not have time to study proposals every day. But as delegation increases, it tends to lead to oligarchization. No matter how well the proposals are written, it all comes down to "who can influence the outcome." Recently, retail investors have been complaining about validator income, MEV, and fairness in transaction ordering. I feel it's the same core issue: the rules seem open, but execution rights and ordering rights are concentrated in the hands of a few, and ordinary people can only watch from the sidelines.

Anyway, my current approach is: if I can vote myself, I do; if I really need to delegate, I try to diversify, and don't blindly trust the "most professional" one; arbitrage can also switch pools. Once governance gets locked in, it's hard to escape.