Recently looking at governance votes on several protocols, the more I look, the more it seems like "delegated voting = convenience package," ultimately resulting in a group of fixed representatives... To put it plainly, who does governance tokens actually govern? Most of the time, it's about controlling lazy people who don't want to click a few times, and the time advantage of big holders. You delegate your vote, on the surface it's participation, but in reality, you're also handing over the power to set the agenda, which naturally leads to oligarchization.

My mom asked me a few days ago: "Isn't voting supposed to be one person, one vote? Why do those few people always decide?" I could only reply half-heartedly: On-chain is public, but attention and information are not... Anyway, it ultimately becomes about who can write proposals, who can organize, who can delegate, and those who do so become more like a "government."

By the way, the heated debate over privacy coins/mixing compliance boundaries is actually quite similar: people discuss values verbally, but during voting, everyone prefers to delegate their votes to "those who seem to understand," and once the trend shifts, the blame also concentrates. My small habit is this: delegation is fine, but I regularly withdraw and vote myself a few times, at least to avoid becoming a forever silent vote. That's all for now, taking a sip of tea.