Recently, I’ve been reviewing governance proposals for several protocols again, and the more I look, the more I feel that “delegated voting” is a double-edged sword: it’s supposed to let people who don’t have time delegate their votes to more professional voters, but in the end, the votes all end up concentrated in the hands of a few regular big accounts, essentially like electing “representatives” of oligarchs… Who governance tokens actually govern is sometimes too uncomfortable to think about carefully.

When new L1/L2 projects issue incentives to attract TVL, everyone rushes in while complaining about yield farming and selling. The “long-term development” mentioned in proposals—who gets to define that? It’s still the same few people who can sway voting.
Long-term on-chain path analysis also has some aftereffects: seeing all those transfers and borrowing operations before and after voting, I can’t help but suspect that someone has set up a trap in advance again.
What I fear most isn’t missing out on opportunities, but rather seeing the risks clearly and pretending not to see them.
Anyway, what I can do now is just delegate less, diversify my delegation, and if I don’t understand a proposal, I’ll just abstain from voting… for now.