Recently, I've seen a bunch of proposals for re-staking/sharing security, with yields layered one after another. It looks pretty attractive, but I always feel like people are stacking "psychological security." To put it simply: repeatedly using the same collateral as guarantees can also lead to a chain reaction of failures when problems occur. Don't mistake "having yields" for "being safer." The questions I most want to ask in governance posts are those few: Who decides the rules for confiscation and penalties? Who holds multi-signature authority, and where are the permission boundaries? Who will cover the costs if something goes wrong— or is it just written off as "decided by the community"?

By the way, in some regions, taxes are increased or relaxed, and compliance tightens or loosens, causing deposit and withdrawal expectations to shift immediately. People's risk preferences change instantly, and when incentives are increased, it's easier to push people to chase high yields. Someone even criticized me: "Why do you always oppose voting?" I don't want to either, but the budget and risks are written like a wishing well. I can only press the oppose button and stay calm for now.