The more influence a token has in a protocol, the higher its intermediation 1️⃣The token has no utility (yet)…

The more influence a token has in a protocol, the higher its intermediation 1️⃣The token has no utility (yet) for the protocol, e.g. $UNI, $MORPHO... There can be no intermediation, because there is no need for it 2️⃣The token is an oracle, e.g. $CRV, $VELO, $AERO, $RAM... Token holders are asked to provide outside information to the protocol, like voting on pools for weekly gauges In this case, we have intermediaries such as “liquid wrappers" (basically liquid staking for ERC-20 tokens) in which you trade voting power for yield Examples : Convex, Aura, Penpie... 3️⃣The token controls (almost) everything, e.g. $MKR, $AAVE... Whoever owns the token owns the protocol, but that also means monitoring the protocol, and not everyone has the time or energy to do that. In this case, intermediaries are the "delegation platforms". Delegation platforms can be seen as “political parties” that have a vision for the protocol's future and users agreeing with this vision can delegate their voting power to them. Delegation platforms can work on a voluntary basis, but they can also present a large-scale project that can be funded by the DAO, just lika Aave Chan Initiative does. 🤝Intermediation is a feature, not a bug. As long as intermediaries are sufficiently decentralized, everything is fine. It becomes a bug when the intermediary has a monopoly