Recently, watching governance voting feels a bit like collecting "power of attorney" before a meeting: you think everyone is discussing the direction, but in reality, voting rights have already been stacked by a few people effortlessly. To put it plainly, governance tokens don't govern the protocol; they govern the token holding structure and attention... Whether retail investors vote or not, the outcome doesn't differ much, at most it makes them feel a little better.

What's more subtle is that people compare RWA and US Treasury yields to on-chain yield products. I can understand, who doesn't want some stable cash flow? But governance becoming oligarchic, so-called "stability" turns into a verbal promise, and the risk isn't the small fluctuations on-chain, but the rules that could be changed at any time.

I'm now more like making a backup: not expecting a single vote to save me, so I leave redundancy in my positions, sources of income, chains, and protocols. If I can withdraw, I do; don't entrust my life to a delegate address. Anyway, just tune it to be less jarring.