Lately, I've been reviewing several DAO proposals, and the more I look at them, the more they seem like instructions on "who manages the keys and who gets the meal tickets." On the surface, they talk about optimizing parameters and making incentives fairer, but in more detail, they hide things like: Is voting power becoming more centralized? Are the execution permissions being handed over to someone else? Are the rewards actually going to the workers or to the voters... Honestly, some proposals are like secretly sawing off the legs of a chair—you don't feel it until you sit down.

And lately, hardware wallets have been out of stock, phishing links are everywhere, and it feels like managing governance isn't just about giving a thumbs-up anymore. Changing permissions means the scope of funds or contracts that can be operated on also changes. If security awareness still stops at "don't click on unfamiliar links," it's like trying to block a storm with a paper umbrella. Anyway, now I look at proposals first by asking: who benefits, who can veto, and who holds the execution keys—then I decide whether to vote.