Lately, I've been looking at a few DAO votes again, and the more I watch, the more I feel that "delegation" is a bit like outsourcing democracy: people find it troublesome and just give one-click authorization to "active representatives," and in the end, a few addresses keep signing back and forth, with whether a proposal passes mostly depending on their mood. They say governance tokens are for governance, but in reality, it’s more about managing attention and laziness... Of course, it’s not all bad; at least some people are willing to spend time looking at the details. But once representatives start receiving resources and communicating with project teams, their stance becomes very hard to keep purely neutral. The twist is, I also understand that ordinary people can’t watch Snapshot every day, and on-chain execution is transparent, but the participation cost is really high; it’s just that every time in the group, we’re talking about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, de-pegging rumors, and so on. People are anxious but still keep casting their votes. Honestly, their risk perception is quite sharp, but power distribution seems to be more by chance. Anyway, now I tend to pause for two seconds whenever I see phrases like "we will represent the community," to first check which side they’ve historically voted on.