Lately, I've been looking at several protocols' delegated voting, and the more I look, the more it seems like the right to "not want to get involved" is being bundled and handed over to a few people with the loudest voices... Frankly, who do governance tokens really govern? It feels like in the end, they govern the attention span of ordinary people: if you don't participate, you're represented; if you do, you might not even understand what parameters the proposals are changing behind the scenes.

What's even more outrageous is that now AI Agents and automated trading are gaining popularity again. Some people are busy promoting "full automation governance/full automation interaction," while others are obsessively checking security details in group chats, afraid that one authorization could send their wallet away. Anyway, I'm more concerned now about whether the process design naturally tends toward oligarchy, rather than how pretty the voting interface is.

I still believe that making incentives and power structures look good can really make the community feel more like a community, rather than a board of directors. For now, that's it—keep tinkering.