Lately, watching governance voting has been a bit depressing…

People talk about decentralization, but in reality, a bunch of folks delegate their votes to “the ones who seem to understand the most,”
and in the end, it just turns into an oligarchy holding meetings.
As a slow-to-warm-up participant, I find it hard to seriously read proposals without feeling like I’m catching up on lessons.
Honestly, who are governance tokens really governing?
Sometimes it feels more like giving big players a “legitimate voice” shell, while small investors just give a thumbs-up from the sidelines.

The NFT royalty debate is even more obvious: creators want ongoing income, secondary markets want smoother liquidity,
and once voting starts, those with more votes tend to have a more “reasonable” narrative.
I care more about how the community tells this story:
Is it about treating works as long-term relationships, or just quick in-and-out little receipts…
Anyway, I won’t blindly rush in; I’ll first look through old series to see if there are still people seriously working on things.
As for whether delegation is really a necessary compromise, I haven’t figured that out yet.
What do you all think?