Recently, when I look at DAO proposals, I get a little fired up… On the surface they say “incentivize community participation,” but on closer inspection it’s just consolidating voting power into a small set of addresses: either granting a certain committee emergency permissions, or changing the way the treasury is distributed to “fund first, ratify later.” In plain terms, you’re giving endorsements—not making decisions. And those incentives framed as “you can vote only if you stake”—they look appealing, but really they’re just excluding people who don’t want to lock their stake.

Over the past few days, everyone’s been comparing RWA and even things like the yield on US Treasuries to on-chain yield products. But I’m more concerned about this instead: it doesn’t matter where the yield comes from. What matters is who has the authority to change parameters, who can swap out the underlying assets, and who can shut the gates. If a proposal doesn’t spell out the permission paths clearly, then no matter how high the APY is, I just treat it as “you can pull the plug at any time.”

Last night, I really had a moment where I wanted to quit a few governance groups, and even thought about uninstalling my wallet plugin—reading those little essays every day is just exhausting… But I managed to hold back. At the very least, I went through the contract admin, the upgrade switches, and the treasury flow. If I can avoid even one pitfall, that’s worth it. That’s it for now.