Recently looking at a few DAO proposals, on the surface they are written very "for the ecosystem," but my first instinct is still to ask: where is the money flowing, who holds the keys, who can change the rules with a single sentence. Many votes are not really "community will," but more like embedding incentives into the bylaws: who gets subsidies, who can have higher voting weight, who can be the default executor... In plain terms, it's about defining the future power structure. Especially now, as everyone is focused on testnet incentives, point expectations, and guessing whether the mainnet will issue tokens, proposals often include a "contribution recognition standard," which can easily attract a wave of people to their camp. That said, it’s not entirely the project team's fault; everyone has expectations. But now, before I vote, I first do a quick "life ledger": how much gas will execution cost, whether multiple signatures are needed, how high the cost of changing rules later is—so that in the end, incentives don’t lead to governance becoming a permanent bottleneck... Anyway, I’d rather go slow than be led by emotional points.