Lately, I’ve been a bit exhausted from governance voting. On-chain, it says “community co-governance,” but when I click in, I see that many votes have actually been delegated, and it’s mostly turned into a “proxy voting club” run by a few people or institutions. Honestly, governance tokens often end up mainly managing liquidity and narratives, rather than truly controlling power itself… I can understand being too lazy to vote, but long-term delegation can easily lead to oligarchic control—who holds the discourse power, who can write proposals that benefit themselves, gradually becoming fixed.

Recently, with some places talking about increasing taxes, tightening or relaxing compliance, everyone’s expectations for deposits and withdrawals have become more cautious. Instead, they prefer to keep their tokens on exchanges or just not move them at all, making governance even less attended to—quite a realistic situation.

I personally prefer to make things a bit more troublesome now: avoid delegating long-term if possible, and if I do delegate, I’ll regularly switch or revoke; also, spend more time setting up hardware wallets and whitelist addresses—slower to operate, but more peace of mind. Anyway, treat it like a probability problem: first define the risk boundaries before talking about participation.