Recently looking at several protocol governance proposals, the more I look, the more it feels like a weather forecast: outwardly calm, but underneath, the wind direction is being driven by a few "trusted major holders." To put it plainly, who does governance tokens really govern? Often, it's the retail participants' sense of involvement; when I open the voting page, it's all the same addresses reclaiming voting power... I don't want to be conspiratorial, but oligarchic tendencies really tend to happen naturally.

On the macro side, there's also debate about whether the expectations of interest rate cuts, the US dollar index, and risk assets are moving together or diverging; when sentiment shifts, the on-chain activity also becomes erratic, and the pace of passing proposals can be "conveniently" influenced by capital flows, which is quite helpless.

If I can only keep one habit: I only look at the concentration of voting rights before deciding whether to participate.