Recently reviewing several protocol votes, the more I look, the more it seems like "delegation = outsourcing thinking." Everyone hands their votes over to a few big accounts, basically for convenience, but ultimately, who does the governance token really govern? Most likely, it governs liquidity and profit distribution: those with more tokens and more voting power tend to write the rules to their advantage.

From the market-making side, it's more straightforward: before a proposal, the order book thins out, and once the news breaks, some people already take positions in advance. The voting results feel more like "confirmation" rather than "decision." Modularization and Layer-2 narratives excite developers immensely, but users are actually quite confused. In the end, it still depends on who can channel resources there. Anyway, I no longer have much filter for "participating in governance." If I can understand it myself, I vote; if I can't, I avoid it. Don't treat votes as freebies just for airdrops.