Recently, I’ve been scrolling through DAO proposals to the point of developing OCD… On the surface, it says “community governance,” but what’s truly useful are always those few lines: who can propose, who can veto, how rewards are distributed, whether not voting counts as punishment. Once incentives are set, everyone suddenly becomes “principled”; hide the power, and discussions turn into team standings. To put it plainly, voting isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about choosing who will have easier access to tokens and influence in the future.

By the way, I’ve also been thinking about how everyone criticizes on-chain data tools and tagging systems as “lagging/liable to mislead,” and I kind of agree: it’s not necessarily important who the address belongs to, but how the thresholds and allocations are written in proposals that can better reveal which way the sentiment is heading… Sometimes, data gives you explanations, proposals give you the script.

I don’t have strict doctrines about “long-term” either; at least it should cross a full governance cycle, about one to two months; a quarterly one is like an extended version, showing how incentives can deform people. Let’s start with this.