Recently, looking at DAO proposals feels a bit like walking in the fog, on the surface talking about "optimizing governance," but in reality, it's just rearranging incentives and power: who can propose, who can join the committee, whether voting rights are based on tokens or lock-up duration, and even small notes like "multi-signature temporary custody," which could later become long-term keys and influence. The airdrop season's point system also seems quite similar; everyone is trying not to get cut off by anti-witch cards, with task platforms setting up a bunch of procedures that feel like clocking in at work. As a result, governance is also driven by the emotions of those "trying to score points/get subsidies," making voting more like speculation rather than consensus... For now, I just want to see clearly who benefits from proposals and who cedes power, then decide whether to participate. That's all for now.