Someone asked me who governance tokens are actually governing… Lately, the more I look at it, the more it seems like “delegated voting” lowers the participation threshold, but in the meantime it conveniently concentrates power: the big holders, funds, and a few active delegates sign, and the rest just end up as background noise. To put it plainly, the voting page is pretty lively, but the results are often written in advance.

What’s more awkward is that many people who hold tokens don’t want to govern at all—they’re just using them as a position-management tool. Then outside, people keep tying it to ETF fund flows, U.S. stock risk appetite, and how crypto markets rise and fall, and once emotions run hot, who’s really going to dig into the fine details of the proposals? For myself, I’ve set a rule: if I don’t understand a proposal, I won’t vote on it, and I won’t “fully delegate” either. I’d rather have a little less sense of participation—at least so I’m not passively turned into a vote stash for oligarchs. Drink some water first, then cool down, and only then click confirm.