Recently, I heard someone say "Delegating tokens to XX for voting is more convenient," which sounds pretty smooth, but I always feel that the more convenient it is, the easier it is to distort. Delegated voting was originally meant to allow those who don't want to worry to participate in governance, but when it’s layered and passed up, it ultimately becomes a few people representing the majority... To put it plainly, who does the governance tokens really govern? Often, they end up governing the ordinary holders, making you think you're "participating," when in fact you're just packaging and handing over your power.

Forget it, speaking plainly: if you hand over the remote control to someone else, don’t expect the channel to change as you want. Especially now, with memes and celebrities shouting for attention, the focus shifts quickly, and newcomers are most likely to take the last baton. The same goes for governance; during lively times, results are more easily taken by “organized groups.” When I run nodes/staking myself, I’d rather invest less often, but I still look at proposal details and incentive boundaries—at least to avoid treating decentralization as just a slogan to shout and then go to sleep.