Recently, I’ve been looking at governance votes for a few protocols, and the more I look, the more I feel that “delegation” is quite subtle: it’s said to help retail investors save trouble, but in the end, the votes all gather into a few big accounts, making it look a lot like an oligarch club. You tell me, who does the governance token “govern”? Anyway, every time parameters are changed or incentives are issued, the list of beneficiaries looks pretty familiar… I’m not saying it’s conspiracy theory, but the rhythm of those on-chain delegation back and forth really seems like someone is tuning the volume.

By the way, it makes me think of the kind of economic collapse points in blockchain games—when inflation kicks in, studios jump in, coin prices spiral, and in the end, governance votes are still discussing “whether to add more subsidies,” which sounds a bit like black humor. Maybe the ultimate goal of delegated voting isn’t more democracy, but more efficiently concentrating voting power? But is it a mechanism problem or a human nature problem… what do you think?