Recently reviewing several DAO proposals, the more I look, the more I feel that voting is not just about "agree/disagree," but more about embedding incentives and power structures into the terms: who can propose, who can receive subsidies, who can join multi-signature wallets, how the budget is divided... In essence, it's about pre-allocating future chips. As someone with small funds practicing market making, I’m especially sensitive to whether the "rules might worsen liquidity." Some proposals seem to support the ecosystem at first glance, but a closer look reveals they increase trading friction, making the curve more volatile, and everyone ends up suffering together. The recent NFT royalty war also feels similar—creators want stable income, but the market worries about secondary liquidity being restricted. In the end, it all comes down to "who has bargaining power, who makes the decisions." Next time I vote, I plan to first sketch out the stakeholders and check if the voting power is concentrated in a few hands... Which aspect do you focus on first when reviewing proposals?