Recently, I’ve been looking at a few protocol governance votes again, and honestly, the more I look, the more it resembles a “large-scale delegated voting moving day.” Others think that once they’ve got governance tokens, they can direct the course of events—yet in reality, once you pass your vote along by delegation, the final say ends up back in the hands of a handful of big whales/funds. The voting pages are lively enough, but it feels like a multiple-choice test where the answers have been written in advance…

I’m not a saint either. When I’m doing perpetual hedging, I might casually take a few votes as “decorations for risk hedging.” But when it comes to truly crucial proposals, those little retail votes sink to the bottom like coffee grounds. Even weirder is this: everyone talks about decentralization out loud, but in their hands they’re all searching for the “most reliable proxy,” and oligarchization happens so naturally.

On the macro side, they’re arguing again about rate-cut expectations—once the U.S. dollar index moves, risk assets rise and fall in step… In any case, emotions come fast, and governance ends up turning into “voting with the tailwind, pretending to be dead in the headwind.” I’ve got one small principle: if I don’t understand a delegation, I’d rather not delegate. At the very least, I won’t help others stack their power even higher. That’s it for now.