I used to believe in that governance system: one person, one vote, the community decides.

Now I see delegated voting increasingly resembling "handing your vote to someone you know,"
and as a result, those trusted individuals gradually become the fixed few,
who writes proposals, how they write them, and ultimately how they pass—
basically all revolving within the same small circle.

Airdrop season is also quite ironic;
the stricter the anti-witchcraft measures on task platforms,
the more the yield farmers resemble clocking in at work,
and the group that actually has time to fill up their points may not care about the protocol's long-term risks;
while those truly holding positions often just delegate their votes to save trouble.
Who exactly is governance tokens governing?
It feels more like governing "attention" and "entry points,"
not managing risks.

My current approach is quite simple:
prefer to vote less, only look at key proposals, especially those that change parameters, vaults, or liquidation rules—
first think about the worst-case scenario and which protocols it could infect…
Anyway, when things are lively, I prefer to tighten the collateral ratio a bit.
That’s all for now.