I used to really think that DAO voting was "everyone gets one vote, listen to whoever has the loudest voice," kind of passionate.

Now after seeing more proposals, it feels more like adjusting incentives and ranking: who can get subsidies, who can get nominated, whose multi-signature signing rights are more secure.
No matter how well written, it all revolves around this.

Recently, the unlock calendar has been repeatedly brought up, and there's daily anxiety and pressure in the group.
I instead look to see if proposals casually include clauses like "for stability" to introduce new staking/lock-up incentives.
Honestly, sometimes governance isn't solving problems; it's using rewards to feed votes.
With shallow market depth, these emotions are even more obvious...
Anyway, before voting, I first look for the part "who will have more power because of this," and if I can't find it, I read it twice more before making a decision.