Recently, I've been looking at a few project delegated voting, and the more I look, the more it seems like "giving your vote to someone else to cast." In simple terms, governance tokens are not just about the protocol; they are about relationships and channels. Many people are too lazy to research, so they just follow the big delegates, and in the end, the influence of those few people becomes more and more stable. Oligarchic control isn't a conspiracy; it's just path dependence.

My wallet is divided into many parts, and I originally wanted each account to cast a vote as a record, but I found that the cost (time + signatures + gas) is higher than expected, and it’s easier to be tempted by the "convenience" of delegation... which is quite ironic. A friend also complained that recently some regions have increased taxes and tightened compliance, causing deposit and withdrawal expectations to change, and everyone is less willing to bother with governance, preferring to speed things up if possible.

Anyway, my current approach is: if I can vote myself, I will vote myself; for delegation, I try to distribute it among different styles of people, at least not tie all my tentacles together on one string. As for risk, don’t expect voting to protect you; in the end, you still have to bear the responsibility yourself.