I used to think that DAO voting was just "everyone has one vote, which is very democratic," and that the better a proposal looked, the more worthy of praise. Now I realize that for many proposals, the most critical aspect isn't the wording but how incentives are distributed, who can get them, and who makes the decisions— for example, voting rights linked to tokens, sounding fair, but often it’s big players and "permanent contributors" who resemble a board of directors, while ordinary people are more passively following the votes.

Now when I look at proposals, I first check: whether the rewards lock people into a small circle, whether the budget is for long-term sustainability, whether there are actual costs for opposing votes... It’s a bit like analyzing the narrative of an art NFT: who’s telling the story, who’s collecting the entrance fees. Recently, with the tightening of tax and compliance signals in certain regions, and the decline in deposit and withdrawal expectations, the community’s attitude of "quickly releasing incentives to stabilize morale" has become even more obvious. Anyway, I vote slowly, preferring to miss out on the excitement rather than serve as a backdrop for power structures.