I’ve been a bit obsessed with recent DAO proposals; honestly, it’s not really “the community decides together,” but more about “who funds it and who gets the control button.”
我一般先假设三件事：投票权分布是不是集中、提案通过后的现金流往哪走、执行权限到底在谁手里（多签那几个地址比口号真实多了）。 I usually start by assuming three things: whether voting power is concentrated, where the cash flow goes after a proposal passes, and who actually holds the execution authority (multi-signature addresses are more real than slogans).
有些提案表面在讲发展，细看激励就是给特定角色续命：补贴谁、谁来分、分多久，顺便把反对成本抬高。 Some proposals seem to focus on development on the surface, but closer inspection reveals that the incentives are just about prolonging the life of specific roles: who gets subsidies, who distributes, for how long, and meanwhile raising the cost of opposition.
这阵子 L2 互怼 TPS/费用/生态补贴，看着热闹，其实跟 DAO 很像：补贴一开，治理就变成“怎么把预算写得更像公共利益”。 Lately, L2s have been arguing over TPS/fees/ecosystem subsidies, which looks lively, but in fact is very similar to DAOs: once subsidies start, governance turns into “how to write the budget more like public interest.”
我最怕的不是亏，而是投票完才发现自己只是给别人权力结构盖章。 What I fear most is not losing money, but realizing after voting that I’ve only stamped someone else’s power structure.
反正我现在看到“激励计划”四个字，第一反应不是兴奋，是去找那条写着“谁有最终解释权”的小字。 Anyway, when I see the words “incentive plan,” my first reaction isn’t excitement, but to look for the small print that says “who has the final interpretive authority.”
最近看 DAO 提案有点上头，说白了不是“社区一起决定”，更多是“谁来出钱、谁能拿到按钮”。
I’ve been a bit obsessed with recent DAO proposals; honestly, it’s not really “the community decides together,” but more about “who funds it and who gets the control button.”
我一般先假设三件事：投票权分布是不是集中、提案通过后的现金流往哪走、执行权限到底在谁手里（多签那几个地址比口号真实多了）。
I usually start by assuming three things: whether voting power is concentrated, where the cash flow goes after a proposal passes, and who actually holds the execution authority (multi-signature addresses are more real than slogans).
有些提案表面在讲发展，细看激励就是给特定角色续命：补贴谁、谁来分、分多久，顺便把反对成本抬高。
Some proposals seem to focus on development on the surface, but closer inspection reveals that the incentives are just about prolonging the life of specific roles: who gets subsidies, who distributes, for how long, and meanwhile raising the cost of opposition.
这阵子 L2 互怼 TPS/费用/生态补贴，看着热闹，其实跟 DAO 很像：补贴一开，治理就变成“怎么把预算写得更像公共利益”。
Lately, L2s have been arguing over TPS/fees/ecosystem subsidies, which looks lively, but in fact is very similar to DAOs: once subsidies start, governance turns into “how to write the budget more like public interest.”
我最怕的不是亏，而是投票完才发现自己只是给别人权力结构盖章。
What I fear most is not losing money, but realizing after voting that I’ve only stamped someone else’s power structure.
反正我现在看到“激励计划”四个字，第一反应不是兴奋，是去找那条写着“谁有最终解释权”的小字。
Anyway, when I see the words “incentive plan,” my first reaction isn’t excitement, but to look for the small print that says “who has the final interpretive authority.”