Last night before bed, I checked a DAO's voting page, which appeared to be "optimizing treasury usage," but in reality, every line was about how power is divided: who can propose, who can temporarily change parameters, who receives incentives, anyway, it's not about writing more justice. The most interesting part is the reward design; often it's not about voting "correctly," but about voting "quickly," voting "follow the big players," and subtly increasing the cost of opposition votes... it's very realistic. Recently, everyone has been talking about expectations of interest rate cuts, the US dollar index, and risk assets rising and falling together. On-chain, it seems more like: when sentiment heats up, governance is easily packaged as "following the trend," with large holders' position changes hidden in the fund flows before and after voting, more honest than slogans. Just making a note now, and in a couple of days, I'll check again to see who really holds the keys.