I recently looked at a DAO proposal, and on the surface, it sounds quite righteous: subsidies, incentives, user acquisition... But my obsessive-compulsive tendencies make me pay close attention to footnotes and parameters. The more I look, the more it seems like a quiet reshuffling of power distribution: who can propose, who can pass quickly, whether voting rights are again concentrated in a few addresses. To put it simply, incentives are not given for free; often, it's a trade of "please hand over your votes."

What's more annoying is that voting is also driven by various timing points and reward rhythms. Everyone is busy claiming airdrops and grabbing subsidies, and there's no time to ask: who will have the final say on this mechanism in the future? Recently, funding rates have been extreme, and in the group, people are arguing whether it's a reversal or just more bubble squeezing. I think voting is similar—when emotions run high, it's easy to be led by the rhythm, ultimately turning into a game where a few people win big.

Now, before I vote, I first copy key addresses, unlock rules, and execution permissions into my notebook (yes, I still use paper...), otherwise, no matter how carefully I back up mnemonic phrases, governance can still be stolen. Let's talk more next time.