Recently, I saw a governance voting for a certain project again. On the surface, it was "community decision," but when I clicked in, I saw that delegated votes were layered on top of each other, and in the end, it was still the same few big players passing the microphone back and forth. Frankly, governance tokens don't actually govern the protocol; they create an illusion for retail investors: you have a vote, but you delegate it to "more professional people," and then those professionals conveniently write the rules to minimize their own transaction fees and make it easier to exit.

The collapse of that kind of blockchain game is also quite similar: inflation attracts people, studios push for volume, and when the coin price drops, everyone withdraws, leaving behind a bunch of "long-termism" PPTs. If governance is only about delegation and oligarchs, then incentives will also shift to: whoever can control the narrative and voting can outsource the risk to others. Anyway, the first reaction I have when I see a ridiculously high proportion of delegated votes is not "participate," but to think carefully about who I am actually working for.