A few days ago, I reviewed a DAO proposal that superficially said "optimize incentives, increase participation," but basically it was just consolidating voting power into a few addresses: pushing voting rewards to one side, and adjusting the threshold parameters so that only big players or market makers can comfortably participate. The most annoying part is that it’s written in a very "neutral" tone, but if you look at the reward distribution conditions, default proxy voting settings, and who can get on the whitelist, the power structure is basically exposed.

Recently, that same "points = potential future airdrops" expectation on the testnet is the same; everyone gets excited and lazy to read the terms, only focusing on whether the mainnet will issue tokens. I’ve been burned by this before: I couldn’t understand the proposal, but voted anyway, only to find out I was essentially giving others a raise and inadvertently locking the opposition vote window... Since then, I have a rule: if I don’t understand it, I won’t act. Better to miss out on the excitement than to become free political fuel.