I just reviewed a DAO proposal, which on the surface is "optimizing incentives," but in reality, it's more like redefining who has the final say. Raising the voting threshold a bit, centralizing delegation channels, and giving some rewards to "active voters" all sound quite reasonable, but when combined, it becomes very nuanced: older addresses are more stable, while newcomers seem more like they're just here to work.

Recently, the testnet's point system was pretty much the same, everyone talks about participating in governance, but what they’re really calculating is whether the mainnet will issue tokens. To put it simply, where incentives are written determines where power flows. I’m not really looking at slogans when I review votes now; I first look at whose pocket the money is coming from and whose pocket it’s going into. In the end, many mistakes are just caused by being hypnotized by "justice narratives."