Recently, when I look at governance votes for a few projects, the more I look, the more it feels like I’m watching an order book: on the surface, it’s “the community decides,” but in practice, delegated votes are stacked up layer by layer, and in the end it’s just those few addresses calling the shots. Put more bluntly, who do governance tokens govern? More often than not, they govern small retail investors’ attention and emotions—just click “Support” twice and it counts as having participated. But whatever the rules changes are, and how incentives get distributed, has already been written into the script in advance by big players and teams.

And now public opinion also likes to tie ETF capital flows, U.S. stock market risk appetite, and crypto market price moves together, as if everything is determined “by the macro.” I admit macro factors are useful, but don’t use that as a cover-up: your project’s internal voting is like an oligarch meeting, and it has little to do with whether the Nasdaq is red or green. In any case, I’d rather understand where the delegation goes, set some exit thresholds, and if I really have to vote, I’ll vote directly as much as possible or set time-limited delegations… otherwise, the more I participate, the more it feels like I’m being used as a liquidity patch, which is kind of annoying. That’s all for now.