Lately, I've been a bit obsessed with DAO proposals. On the surface, they say it's about "changing parameters/adding features," but in reality, many are about adjusting incentives and power structures: who can propose, who can make changes, who gets the money, who takes the blame. Honestly, voting isn't about right or wrong; it's about deciding who will find it more convenient to press the button afterward. Like fixing garden pipes or dividing a cake—once the pipeline is in place, someone will always stay upstream.

The recent fuss over NFT royalties has been quite similar: on one side, saying they need to provide a livelihood for creators; on the other, claiming secondary liquidity is being restricted; and in the end, it often boils down to "who set the default rules and whether they can be bypassed." When I review proposals now, I first look at: how the budget is allocated, whether delegates are being fed votes, and if the exit mechanisms are clearly written; otherwise, after voting, you might find you've given someone a permanent buff. That's all for now—gradually refining.