Just received another DAO voting notification on my phone, and when I clicked in, I found the proposal text was written as "good for the ecosystem," but the attachment changed the incentive distribution order: first giving points to voters/agents, and only later to the actual workers. To be clear, this isn't about right or wrong; it's about rearranging who has more say and who is more easily passively "followed." Right now, when I look at proposals, I mainly focus on: who can get rewards, how much, how long to lock, and whether it can be transferred or delegated… these are more honest than pretty narratives.

Recently, the funding rate has been discussed to extremes, with some calling for a reversal and others saying to continue squeezing the bubble. I instead see it as an emotional thermometer: the more excited, the easier it is to insert "temporary measures" into governance, which eventually become long-term power structures. For now, let's observe the on-chain voting distribution and decide whether to follow or not.