Recently reviewing DAO proposals, the more I look, the more I feel that many things are not about "discussing the vision," but quietly changing incentives and power structures: how the budget is allocated, who has signing authority, slight adjustments to voting thresholds, and eventually it becomes "who has the final say." I run a small validator, usually just monitoring uptime and penalty risks, which is enough to be busy, but governance can't just look at summaries; you need to glance at the appendices and implementation details.

Recently, the unlocking of staking and token release schedules have been repeatedly brought up, and everyone is anxious about selling pressure. Actually, moving incentives to different pools or relaxing/tightening the lock-up conditions for certain people in the proposals is also just changing the form of "selling pressure." Anyway, I need to be reminded: voting isn't about taking sides; it's signing a contract. Once signed, it's hard to turn back. That's all for now.