Recently reviewing several DAO proposals, they say on the surface, “optimize governance / increase participation,” but the parameters are packed with little mechanisms—for example, lowering voting thresholds while locking proposal power to only a handful of addresses; or offering “voting subsidies,” but only friendly to certain time windows / certain delegates. In plain terms, it’s not really about asking whether it’s “right or wrong”—it’s about redistributing who gets to set the starting lineup and who can only follow along.

What I regret isn’t the outcome, but that before, when I voted, I only looked at the slogans and didn’t work through the incentive structure… Later, I realized that what you thought was you expressing a stance was actually you acknowledging receipt of someone else’s power arrangement.

Lately, in some regions, taxes are being added and compliance is tightened for a while, then loosened again—deposit and withdrawal expectations get twisted back and forth. So more and more people rely on short-term voting sentiments of “just take the subsidies.” Anyway, my current habit is: first see where the money flows, then see whether someone can block or accelerate execution, and only then look at the copy. If you’re willing to be a leek, you also have to know what the sickle looks like.