These days, when reviewing DAO proposals, it increasingly feels like reading a manual for "who's holding the keys." On the surface, it talks about incentives: who gets subsidies, how they are distributed, and for how long; but what truly affects the power structure are the fine print—how voting rights are calculated, whether delegation can be further delegated, whether incentives are only given to voters, and whether execution permissions are embedded into a multi-signature wallet. To put it simply, where the rewards flow determines where the influence gathers.

The recent criticism of the staking/shared security model as "nested doll" structures feels the same to me: yield stacking is tempting, but if a proposal ties risk and governance together, ultimately turning into "you want to get paid, you have to nod along," then it’s not about profit—it's about locking people into the mechanism. Anyway, when I review proposals now, I first look at two things: who can change the rules, and how costly it is to do so... I’m going to get to work.