Lately, the more I look at governance proposals, the more uncomfortable I feel: they say it's "community governance," but in the end, a bunch of votes are delegated to just a few people, and it ends up like a oligarch board meeting... Who does the governance token really serve? Honestly, it still mostly serves liquidity and narrative. Small investors voting or not voting makes little difference; voting just gives a bit of participation feeling, which is pretty depressing.

What's even more crazy is that when spot/contract funding rates hit an extreme, the group chat starts arguing "Is it about to reverse or continue to squeeze the bubble," but these emotional swings can also influence governance: whoever holds more chips, who can securely get delegated votes, can change the rules in a way that favors themselves.

Right now, I try to follow hot topics less, focus more on delegation structure and voting concentration, and hedge my positions a bit. At least I won't let an invisible vote amplify my risk exposure... That's all for now.