Lately, the more I watch governance voting, the more uncomfortable I feel. Clearly called "community governance," but the common scene is: a bunch of people directly delegate their votes to a few big accounts. It's convenient, but honestly, it’s a bit oligarchic... Who exactly is the governance token governing? Maybe more like governing the "me who is too lazy to read proposals."

The social mining approach is also quite similar—fan tokens, attention as mining. It sounds lively, but in reality, it’s just whoever can gather more eyeballs gets more rewards; it doesn’t seem like a false proposition, but it also doesn’t quite align with the original intention of "decentralization."

My current approach is quite timid: if I can review it myself, I vote myself; if I must delegate, I spread it out to different people, and I also check what they’ve voted on before. I don’t just delegate with one click and entrust my brain as well. I still believe that serious discussions on governance can at least help the protocol avoid some detours.