Lately, I've been getting a bit obsessed with reviewing DAO proposals... On the surface, it's "for the good of the ecosystem," but when you look closely at how incentives are distributed and voting rights are allocated, you can basically guess who will have more influence later on. Honestly, many times it's not about voting for a particular feature, but about voting for "who will hold the keys in the future" and "who will get a slice of the cake." Now when I see proposals that temporarily increase subsidies and conveniently change the thresholds, I get cautious: are they trying to exhaust all opposition votes?

These days, isn't that mainstream public chain planning an upgrade? The community is speculating whether projects will migrate. I actually think whether they migrate or not often depends on whether that set of power structures within the DAO is stable: who puts in the money, who makes the decisions, and who bears the consequences.

Also, my definition of "long-term" is pretty short... Maybe about a quarter. A protocol that can last over three months without crashing, I dare to spend a bit more effort on routing and capital flow. Otherwise, it's just pure FOMO opening blind boxes.