Recently looking at a few governance votes, the more I look, the more it seems like reconciling accounts: tokens are said to be "everyone governs together," but in the end, a bunch of people delegate their votes to a few big accounts, and only those few people are left to make decisions. Frankly, this is convenient, but also quite oligarchic. Who does the governance token actually govern? It might be governing "attention" and "social relationships."

What's more awkward is that when real issues occur, such as cross-chain bridge thefts or oracle errors, everyone tacitly shouts "wait for confirmation," and by the time the final confirmation comes, it's still the core addresses of those few delegate pools. Forget it, to put it plainly: if you delegate your votes, don't expect to hold the steering wheel yourself at critical moments. Looking at governance now, I first check the treasury expenses and who can access the funds, then look at those few large delegate chains in the voting records, and only then do I have a clear idea.