These days, I've been organizing a bunch of governance interactions again, and I increasingly feel that "delegated voting" is pretty much like handing homework over to the class monitor: it saves you effort, but in the end, who the class listens to is really just a few people. On-chain, the voting addresses look like a long string, but actually the voting power is concentrated at the top, and the rest, like small votes from people like me, are more about joining the fun and signing multiple times, which makes my hand sore.

What's more awkward is that delegation was originally meant to increase participation, but it gradually turned into "who can operate, who can pull votes, who can get large delegations"—those are the ones who define the proposal direction. Who exactly is governance tokens governing? Sometimes it feels like they’re governing retail investors’ anxiety: not delegating for fear of missing out, but delegating also for fear of being used as a tool.

Recently, there's been a lot of noise outside about expectations of rate cuts, the dollar index, and risk assets rising and falling together. When emotions heat up, everyone is less interested in the details of proposals and just delegates to the "reliable-looking" accounts... Anyway, I now only dare to set shorter delegation periods, regularly review and collect them, so at least I don’t leave my voting rights permanently at someone else’s mercy.