Lately, I've been a bit obsessed with DAO voting proposals. On the surface, they all seem to be about "encouraging community participation" and "boosting TVL," but honestly, it's just rearranging who gets subsidies and who has the power to decide how subsidies are distributed. Many proposals design rewards cleverly: voting for a certain pool or strategy can also earn extra airdrops or fee rebates, so the final voting results look like "public opinion," but in reality, it's more about tying power to those who can lock in the most assets and for the longest periods. More specifically, who controls parameters like liquidation thresholds, collateral ratio caps, or even "emergency pause permissions" is the real power structure—it's not just pretty words written in the vision.

The same logic applies to on-chain games with inflation, studios, and coin price spirals crashing—once incentives become the only cohesion, it ultimately becomes a contest of who can grab the incentives through voting, while long-term users are diluted. Anyway, when I look at proposals now, I first ask myself: "Who pays, who receives, and who has veto power?" That's all.