Recently, I saw a bunch of people linking ETF capital flows with U.S. stock market risk appetite to explain crypto price movements, and they spoke convincingly... But what I care more about is: who is actually governing whom on the chain. This delegated voting system, to put it simply, is outsourcing attention to a few large holders/institutions/professional representatives, ultimately turning into a handful of people making decisions in a group chat, while others are just stacking their votes for them. No matter how well-written the proposals are, if the voting turnout is low, the result becomes very oligarchic.

My definition of "long-term" is also quite utilitarian: not a grand narrative of one or two years, but whether it can survive the next round of chain liquidations, cross-chain bridge issues, or a stablecoin tremor. If it can make it to the next quarter, then we can talk about ideal governance... Anyway, right now I see high concentration of delegated addresses, so I default to the worst-case scenario.