Recently reviewing several DAO proposals, on the surface discussing "parameter optimization" and "ecosystem support," but in reality the core is: who can get incentives, who can set the rules. Once voting rights are tied to subsidies/points, everyone becomes very honest—voting for what benefits themselves, with the ideal narrative just as background music. (At this point, even drinking tea can't suppress the impatience.)

Currently, the incentives on the testnet and the expectations for points are also fueling the hype about "whether the mainnet will issue tokens." Many designs in the proposals are essentially lining up in advance: turning certain behaviors into quantifiable contributions, then consolidating the distribution rights into a few signers/committee members. Don't just look at whether the vote passes, pay more attention to who proposes, who executes, and who can change the rules; what I can do is to avoid chasing the hype, and when necessary, use protective transactions to prevent emotions and chips from being easily taken away by "governance."