Today, while frothing milk and reviewing DAO proposals, I really feel like many people only look at “whether subsidies are given,” but really, you should be looking at who can change the rules, who has the authority to sign, and whether the voting thresholds are deliberately set so that you can’t even participate… Some proposals are written like a coffee recipe—on the surface, it’s like “add a bit of sugar and it’s smoother,” but in reality it’s handing the key to the sugar jar over to a fixed group of people.

The other day, I even came across a proposal I truly couldn’t make sense of. There were a bunch of parameters, and it also included a segment saying “special cases can be handled by the committee.” In the moment I thought: forget it—if I don’t understand it, I’ll just not move on it for now. Later, in the group, people were arguing about whether privacy coins and coin mixing are crossing the line, and it got so heated it was like two kinds of beans were spraying at each other—then it hit me: when it comes to compliance boundaries, once they’re written into governance provisions, they become an amplifier of power structures in the future. Anyway, before I vote, I first look for things like “who the incentives go to, who gets the power, and how high the cost is to exit,” rather than just being dazzled by those small rewards.