Lately, looking at DAO proposals feels a bit like reading detective novels… On the surface, they talk about "optimizing governance" and "increasing participation," but only in the last few paragraphs do you realize the real focus is on how incentives are distributed, who gets them, and when. Frankly, voting isn't about "everyone's opinions"; it's more like a power structure lining up: who can propose, who can change parameters, whose votes don't come in but the results still stay stable.

And that kind of "voting participation rewards" sounds quite democratic, but in reality, it trains people to only show up when there's free stuff. I now prefer to keep an eye on a few old wallets: they don't talk much, but they always vote right on time, and after voting, they often do some on-chain actions as well…

By the way, recently, the on-chain data tools and tagging systems have been criticized for lagging behind. I kind of agree: tagging feels like a qualitative judgment, but wallet habits change, and some people even perform for show. Anyway, I just treat these as clues, not conclusions, and keep watching the details as a lone wolf.