Lately, watching governance voting feels more and more like watching a tour group calling out names… On the surface, it's one person, one vote, but in reality, it's a layer of delegation stacking upward, and in the end, only a few "resident tour guides" have the say. To put it plainly, who do governance tokens really govern? Most likely, they first govern those who are too lazy to vote or those who simply don't understand the proposals, and then power naturally flows along the path dependency toward big holders and a few familiar faces. Add to that this wave of testnet incentives and token expectations, and everyone keeps asking, "Will the mainnet issue tokens?" As a result, governance discussions also start to distort: voting becomes more like a ticket to bet on airdrops.

My mom asked me a couple of days ago, "Is your voting as fair as electing class monitors?" I could only reply half-heartedly: theoretically yes, but in reality… Anyway, I now prefer to watch delegation flows and the rhythm of vote withdrawals—who suddenly takes on large delegations, who quietly exits—these are often more honest than what proposals say. Let’s start with this, and watch slowly.