Lately, watching governance voting feels more and more like stirring tea: a ripple on the surface, but the tea leaves underneath have already settled. Delegated voting is supposed to be convenient, but it turns into "handing my votes over to the big players," in essence, governing not the protocol, but relationships and social networks. On-chain it says decentralization, but off-chain it becomes a group chat among a few people making decisions... I’m not against delegation; I’m lazy myself, but just the thought that in the end, it might be oligarchs representing everyone makes me a bit uncomfortable.

These days, some people are interpreting crypto market rises and falls using ETF capital flows and U.S. stock market risk appetite, sounding like "the wind outside blows, and the tea automatically tastes better." But governance is more like whether the tea is hot or not: you delegate all the power, and when the market rises, you feel involved; when it falls, you realize you don’t even have the right to argue. Don’t chase the hot soup, first feel the cup’s wall.