I'm not very good at arguing about governance right or wrong in the comment sections... but lately, the more I look at delegated voting, the more uncomfortable I feel. They call it "community governance," but most people just delegate their votes with a single click to a few big players or research institutions, and whether a proposal passes basically depends on how those familiar faces think. If you ask who the governance tokens are governing, honestly, it seems more like they're just providing a legitimate outlet for liquidity and reputation: I stay silent, you make the decisions.

It's not that oligarchs are necessarily bad; some people do understand risks and details better. But the problem is misaligned incentives: delegators don't really take responsibility for the results, and trustees can easily be influenced by various resources. Plus, with recent attention shifts driven by memes and celebrity endorsements, when newcomers jump in hot, veteran players warn "don't take the last step," which also applies to governance—don't treat voting as participation; in the end, you'll realize you're just carrying someone else's water. Anyway, I now prefer to do less and observe more; mechanisms that allow you to exit are more practical than just "voting rights."