Lately, I've been looking at some protocol governance, and the more I look, the more it seems like a question: who exactly is the governance token governing… In theory, it's the community, but in reality, many votes are delegated to just a few big accounts. When there are too many proposals, people get lazy to read them, and it ends up becoming a “oligarchs' meeting.” To put it simply, delegated voting is quite convenient, but it also makes it easy to outsource the sense of participation.

It's a bit like a neighborhood homeowners' association: everyone hands their votes over to a “helpful neighbor.” At first, it seems reliable, but over time, he gets too familiar with the property management, and it's hard to replace him. Opponents also have to learn how to fill out a bunch of forms first.

Recently, I've been discussing expectations of rate cuts, the US dollar index, and risk assets swinging together. I'm actually more concerned that, under this emotional volatility, governance might be more easily manipulated by a few people setting the tone. Anyway, when I evaluate projects now, besides incentive design, I also pay attention to delegation concentration and voting participation rates—at least to avoid self-deception.