I used to be stubborn: I only look at the blockchain, and as soon as the voting results come out, I consider it "public opinion." Anyone who opposes is just ignorant. Later, I was really slapped in the face a few times... The incentive design in DAO proposals, to put it simply, is about locking in your attention and alliances for the next few months: how voting rights are distributed, who to delegate to, who signs off on the budget—all are power structures, not the romantic "community consensus."

Recently, I heard that some regions are tightening or loosening taxes and compliance, and the emotions around deposits and withdrawals in the group immediately distort. Some people start urging proposals "to quickly give subsidies / buy back / do market making." On-chain, you can indeed see how big players vote, but not paying attention to why they vote that way makes it easy to be led astray.

My current obsession has shifted to: on-chain + incentives together. When I see proposals that send rewards to voters or push execution rights onto a few multi-signers, I first hit pause. Don’t rush to be a justice advocate—think first if you’re being designed as a "useful vote count." For now, I’ll do that, and tonight I’ll review the authorization clauses of that proposal again.