I just read a DAO proposal. On the surface it says “optimize incentives,” but let’s be real—it’s just reshuffling the cake: whoever makes the proposal, whoever casts the vote, whoever gets the subsidies. The whole power structure is tucked away in those seemingly boring parameters. I always tell myself, don’t chase the top, don’t be impulsive. But the moment I see words like “limited-time bonus” or “participation rewards,” my hands start to itch, and I nearly hit “confirm” again… Luckily, I’d better note the problem down first: are they encouraging participation, or are they just buying votes?

And lately, isn’t everyone arguing too about on-chain data tools, the lag in the tagging system, and even how it can be manipulated or misled? Now when I look at voting, I get the same kind of feeling: you think you’re seeing “public sentiment,” but actually you’re seeing “who’s better at organizing, who’s better at telling stories.” Anyway, I’m still inclined to believe this—at least putting the rules on-chain is a little better than quietly settling things behind the scenes. For now, that’s it: I’ll keep being a FOMO librarian who doubts everything while still voting.