Lately I've been looking at governance for a few projects, and the more I look, the more it feels dull: in theory, everyone votes, but in reality, many people delegate their votes to save trouble, and in the end, it becomes a few "representatives" making decisions. To put it plainly, who are governance tokens really governing... maybe it's more about managing the illusion of retail investors, honestly, I’m too lazy to click on voting every day, I admit.

And now, on-chain data tools and address labels are also criticized for being laggy or even misleading, right? You think you're looking at "public opinion," but what you might actually be seeing is just a narrative some people want you to see. For me, the real signals are quite simple: when it comes to key proposals, is the community seriously debating, or just following the big players in a one-sided manner? And those who are delegated, are they willing to step up and explain if something goes wrong? Anyway, I prefer the small cabin mode—less passion, more patience...