I'm not very good at putting on a passionate act to talk about “community governance,” but delegated voting, put simply, is just packaging up voting power and handing it over to a small number of big holders/representatives. In the end, the governance token you’re governing with often isn’t the protocol itself—it’s the distribution of benefits to the people who hold the tokens. Small retail investors just want it to be easy, so they delegate with a single click; the representatives want it easy too, so they align with a few opinion leaders in a couple of groups. Then proposals turn into “who can write a narrative that sounds more like it’s for everyone’s benefit.” As for how fee switches and how real cash flows actually land on tokens—if they can drag it out, they drag it out, because it doesn’t affect their ability to keep taking those subsidies. Even funnier, lately hardware wallets are out of stock, and phishing links are everywhere. A lot of people are tense about private key security, but they’re surprisingly comfortable handing over governance power… No wonder governance doesn’t get depoliticized or de-oligarchized. Anyway, I’m only focused on one question: when you make me vote, what tangible, realizable thing does it ultimately bring to the tokens? If there’s nothing, then don’t perform.