Last night, I looked over a DAO proposal before bed. On the surface, it said "optimize parameters," but in reality, it quietly shifted incentives: who votes to get subsidies, who can know in advance how to adjust, whose positions benefit the most... Basically, voting isn't "public opinion," it's more like rearranging power and cash flow. Recently, everyone has been complaining about validator income, MEV, and unfair ordering, and I think it's the same logic: the rules seem neutral, but the benefits often flow first to those who can influence the rules. Anyway, when I look at proposals now, I first ask three questions: where does the money come from, who gets it, and for how long; then I decide whether to reduce my position a bit.