Recently reviewing a few DAO proposals, I feel a bit emotional: on the surface, they are discussing "whether to do X," but underneath, they are actually reallocating who can make decisions and who can receive ongoing budgets. To put it simply, the more detailed the incentives are written, the more it resembles turning voting into a predictable power structure: who has a low proposal threshold, who has veto power, who can receive "maintenance fees" long-term. In the end, it's not about the philosophy, but about each person's position in the same chart...

On the macro side, there's also debate about easing expectations, the US dollar index, and risk assets rising and falling together. I think it’s quite similar to DAO psychology: when liquidity loosens, everyone is more willing to believe "governance will improve"; when it tightens, they start focusing on whether permissions and wallets are being locked down. Anyway, when I look at proposals now, I find it more reliable to see "who is written into the rules, and who is written out" than to rely on pretty narratives.