Recently looked at several DAO proposals, on the surface about "optimizing processes / increasing participation," but upon closer inspection, they all circle back to the same issue: who gets incentives, who has voting rights, and who can change the rules. Many votes are not really about right or wrong; they are about endorsing the incentive structure for a certain group of people. In other words, they are writing power into parameters.

By the way, this reminded me of the recent testnet incentives, token expectation, and guesses about whether the mainnet will issue tokens... It's normal for everyone to be very active in voting, but I care more about whether these points will eventually turn into governance tokens or make it easier for a minority to manufacture "legitimate" influence. Anyway, when I look at proposals now, I first check the distribution and thresholds, then the narrative, to avoid being easily swayed by words like "community consensus" (which is quite convenient).