Lately, the more I look at DAO voting proposals, the more I feel that on the surface it's about "parameter adjustments," but in reality, it's about distributing who has a say and who can receive incentives. For example, giving rewards to voters sounds very democratic, but how the rewards are distributed, who can vote on behalf, and whether there are thresholds—all of these automatically filter out the "silent majority," leaving only those who can monitor the market long-term.

These days, funding rates are extremely volatile, and in the group, people are arguing whether it's a reversal or just more bubble squeezing. I think it's similar to voting: where the incentives are, that's where people stand. Anyway, I don't participate in voting for the excitement; I first leave enough margin for liquidation on my lending positions, then look at which proposals would make people more comfortable under those rules.

What I’ve learned isn’t techniques, but rather to clarify who benefits and who bears the cost before clicking confirm.