Lately, looking at DAO voting proposals has been a bit exhausting... On the surface, it's "optimizing parameters/expanding the ecosystem," but in reality, many times it's about writing incentive distribution tables: who gets the budget, who has the say, who can adjust the voting threshold to be friendly to themselves. To put it simply, voting isn't about choosing good or bad, it's about choosing who will be more comfortable in the next two months.

What's even more amusing is that now everyone is pushing testnet incentives, monitoring points, and daily guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens, then a bunch of proposals are just conveniently inserting "contribution definition rights": which actions count as contributions, who scores them, and who gets the scores. You think you're voting for the ideal, but you're actually voting for the permission system.

My current approach is very crude: first look at where the budget flows and who the signers are, then see how the proposal modifies incentives, and finally look at the beautiful vision. It's depressing, but at least I won't be controlled by the words "community consensus" as a remote control anymore.