I feel like the governance tokens mostly end up "governing" not so much retail investors like me, but more like giving permissions to those who can rally votes and collect delegations... It's not a conspiracy theory, just how the mechanism is set up.

Delegated voting is quite reasonable: if you're too lazy to participate, let knowledgeable people vote. But over time, it turns into a few addresses hoarding a bunch of votes, with proposals written, when to vote, and how to set the tone before voting all handled in a one-stop process. Looking at on-chain data feels very cold, but the more I look, the more it seems like an oligarch club—whether retail investors vote or not doesn't really have much marginal impact.

Recently, the group has been sharing stuff about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and screenshots of "de-pegging," and as soon as emotions rise, people are even less interested in governance—just trying to survive first. Honestly, if governance really wanted to represent people, it might need to first fill in the hole of "delegation = concentration of power," or else the token is just a voting shell. That's all for now; I’ll keep monitoring the data.