Recently reviewing proposals for some obscure DAOs, the more I look at it, the more I feel that voting on the surface is "community decision-making," but underneath it's really about incentives and power structures at play. For example, locking voting rights with staked tokens, tying them to market-making, or even linking them to "activity levels"—claiming to prevent sybil attacks, but in reality, it’s about pre-defining who can speak. And those that reward participation in voting—I thought they would boost engagement, but in the end, it just turns into a bunch of people voting for the easiest option to get rewards, making the proposal quality more random...

By the way, I see outside discussions trying to link ETF capital flows, U.S. stock market risk appetite, and crypto price movements into a single narrative. It sounds reasonable, but in DAOs, what usually influences you isn't macro narratives, but "who holds the votes, how they got the votes, and what they can get from voting." Anyway, my first glance at proposals now isn't about their vision, but about who they’re leveraging for.