Lately, I've been looking at governance votes for several projects, and the more I look, the more it seems like a network of "who lends their votes to whom"… To put it simply, delegated voting was originally meant to be a convenience, but in the end, it turns into a situation where a few large holders or institutions hold a bunch of addresses' wills. No matter how beautifully the proposals are written, they’re useless; the real influence still comes down to those few wallet addresses.

What's more awkward is that some teams claim to be decentralized, but on-chain you can see multi-signature wallets, vaults, and voting rights flipping back and forth—like flipping through a household register, but the key pages are always missing a corner.
I also have some shadow over the collapse points in blockchain games: when inflation kicks in, studios rush in, token prices drop, governance votes become even more concentrated—everyone just wants to stop the bleeding quickly, who has time for long-term discussions.
Anyway, now whenever I see the words "delegation," I reflexively check the authorization and fund flows first.
That’s all.