These days, the group is again discussing stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and various rumors about "de-pegging." Honestly, seeing too much of it is a bit exhausting... But the more these times happen, the more you can see what's hidden in DAO voting proposals. Many proposals seem to be "optimizing parameters / issuing subsidies" on the surface, but underneath, they are quietly changing voting thresholds, representative seats, and incentive distribution paths. Whoever can more easily gain influence can define "risk."

Right now, I don't look at the slogans when reviewing proposals; I first draw a small diagram to clarify where the money comes from, who can influence the votes, and who can exit. Otherwise, it's easy to get carried away and follow the rhythm.
Anyway, I still believe: laying out the power structure clearly is more reliable than shouting about safety.