Someone said, "Delegated voting is just about increasing participation," and I can't help but laugh... Honestly, once delegation opens up, who exactly is the governance token really governing? In the end, it often ends up governing those few large institutional or resident addresses. Ordinary people are too lazy to read proposals and just hand their votes over to "the knowledgeable," but even the knowledgeable may not care about your risk preferences—they only care whether their proposed change can pass.

Not to mention recent issues with cross-chain bridges and oracles reporting outrageous prices. The on-chain "waiting for confirmation" consensus mechanism is actually quite realistic: when problems occur, pause first, roll back, then patch. But if governance votes are concentrated, key switches like pause/resume become very much like oligarchs consulting behind closed doors—more efficient, but how trustworthy? I still prefer my old habit: first look at the code and permission tables, then decide whether to delegate my votes.