Lately I've been looking at governance votes for a few protocols again. To put it simply, many "governance tokens" now are more like tickets endorsing delegates: retail investors are too lazy to vote or can't understand proposals, so they delegate with one click, and ultimately voting power is concentrated in the hands of a few familiar faces. How proposals are written and passed is basically decided by those same groups. On the surface, it's decentralized, but in reality, there's a hint of oligarchy. Who is governance really governing... I have a clear idea in my mind.

Not to mention, protocols also stake and lend to each other. If a large holder's risk management is a bit lax, the contagion path can be connected. Recently, everyone is watching large on-chain transfers and abnormal movements in exchange hot and cold wallets as "smart money," but often it's just the same group of people rebalancing or maintaining collateral ratios—don't overthink it. Forget it, let's not talk about emotions. Anyway, I stick to my usual rules: watch the concentration, watch the collateral buffer ratios, and see who blows up first in the worst-case scenario.