Lately, I've been looking at several DAO votes, and the more I look, the more it feels like electing a class president: a bunch of people delegate their votes to "the most knowledgeable person," and then those few people show up every day for attendance checks, while the rest... are just too lazy to click. Honestly, governance tokens often govern not the protocol itself, but the schedules and stances of large token holders.

Not to mention some projects even have upgrade logic, with permissions hanging on multi-signature or proxy contracts. On the surface, the vote passes, but who can execute afterward, or whether it can be bypassed, ordinary users really can't see clearly. My approach is quite simple: if I see too high a concentration of delegation or overly flexible permissions, I prefer to avoid them, so I won't wake up one day to find the rules changed and think I was "participating in governance."

Modularization and the narrative of the DAO layer have recently become hot topics again, developers are talking excitedly, while users are confused: who is writing the rules, who is pressing the buttons? Without understanding these, even the most beautiful votes seem like stamping approval for oligarchs... Let's leave it at that for now.