These days, looking at DAO proposals has triggered my OCD again... On the surface, it says "improve governance efficiency," but once I get to the incentives page, I can basically guess who will become the permanent decision-maker: how voting rights are distributed, who to delegate to, whether rewards go to "participants" or "organizers," essentially drawing a power structure chart. The most annoying are those who design rewards to be tightly bound to a small circle; in the end, everyone isn't debating right or wrong, but calculating which side benefits more and avoids losses.

By the way, when I see Layer 2 projects arguing over TPS, fees, and ecosystem subsidies, I become even more cautious: the bigger the subsidy, the easier governance is to be hijacked by "who can pay," turning voting into a prelude to snatching airdrops... Anyway, now I don't look at proposals for slogans first; I look at where the money flows, how long it flows, and who can change the rules. Taking it slow is better than casting a confused vote.