Recently, I've been looking at governance votes for several projects again, and the more I look, the more it feels like I'm watching a "Delegation List Ranking"... They say everyone can participate, but in the end, most of the votes are taken by a few agents, and who the governance tokens actually govern comes down to those few people after voting power is concentrated.

Retail investors usually complain that validators/miners earn too much, MEV front-running, unfair ordering—I can understand that. The on-chain rules are public, but if you don't have the right, you can only watch from the sidelines. Governance is similar; no matter how beautiful the proposal is written, when it comes to implementation, it still depends on who can make the final decision.

If everyone had been more willing to delegate their votes or simply adopted a "too lazy to manage" attitude back then, maybe we wouldn't have moved toward oligarchy so quickly... But then again, who has the time to monitor governance every day? Anyway, I just stick to my usual approach: when emotions are high, I don't move; when things cool down, I slowly add some infrastructure. Don't expect voting to suddenly make the world fair.