These days I've been looking at proposals from several DAOs, and the more I look, the more I feel that voting is not just about "choosing right or wrong," but more about who gets the microphone and who is responsible for cleaning up the mess. The phrases in the proposals like "giving rewards to contributors" and "granting larger permissions to the workgroup" sound gentle, but how incentives are distributed, who evaluates them, and what to do if evaluation is unclear, are all quietly consolidating power into a certain circle.

Recently, after cross-chain bridges were hacked and oracle errors occurred, everyone has been saying "wait for confirmation." I understand, after all, when something really goes wrong, the last ones to take the blame are usually not those who voted in favor. Anyway, before I vote now, I look a little more: where the money is going, who can call a halt, and whether ordinary people have an exit door. It's okay to be a bit slower; at least don't treat trust as a one-time consumable.