Lately I’ve been watching the voting pages of a few DAOs, and the more I look, the more it feels like an electrocardiogram: normally a straight line, then when a proposal shows up it suddenly spikes, and then it returns to zero. They call it governance tokens, but in the end, it seems like what’s being “governed” is the question of “who holds the most delegated votes.” I’ve also done it myself—delegating my votes to big players to make things easier—but when I think about it later, it feels pretty awkward. Put simply, it’s outsourcing your sense of participation, and oligarchic control happens so smoothly.

Recently, I’ve also seen people comparing RWA, US bond yield, and all kinds of on-chain “yield products,” and the discussion has been lively. But when it comes to governance, it feels more like a blind spot: who takes the returns, who carries the risks, who makes the decision if something goes wrong… in many cases, the answers are hidden in the delegation relationships of those few people.

I’ll treat this as practice for trading psychology: less fantasizing about “I can change the mechanism,” and more reminding myself “who am I dancing with.” If emotions run hot, I’ll go draw a couple of lines—then cool down and decide whether to keep delegating. Just start with that.