Just received a notification on my phone about a DAO voting red dot, and upon clicking in, I found the proposal text was written as "for the good of the ecosystem," but the attachment changed the incentive distribution order: first giving points to voters/agents, and only afterward to the actual workers. To be clear, this isn't about right or wrong; it's about rearranging who has more say and who is more easily passively "followed." Honestly, when I look at proposals now, I mainly focus on: who can earn rewards, how much, how long they are locked, and whether they can transfer or delegate… these are more honest than pretty narratives.

Recently, the funding rate has been discussed to extremes, with some calling for a reversal and others saying to continue squeezing the bubble. I instead see it as a mood thermometer: the more excited, the easier it is to insert "temporary measures" into governance, which can eventually turn into long-term power structures. For now, let's observe the on-chain voting distribution and decide whether to follow or not.