I'm not very good at explaining big principles, but every time I see that "delegated voting" setup, I can't help but laugh: they say it's to make small investors feel at ease, but in reality it's like handing the remote control to the neighbor who loves turning up the volume the most. Who exactly does governance tokens really govern? Honestly, it often governs those who are "more available, better at rallying votes, or have more concentrated chips."

Recently, there's been a lot of discussion about staking unlocks, token unlock schedules, and everyone anxiously selling pressure while delegating their votes, as if just voting "approve" can prevent unlocks from happening... Anyway, when I look at governance proposals now, I first check the distribution of voting rights, then see if the proposal offers a more comfortable exit route for big holders. Small investors feel quite involved, but influence? Don't take it too seriously.