When looking at DAO voting proposals, my first glance isn't at the "vision," but rather at how the incentives are distributed, who can receive them, and how long they are issued... In other words, the power structure is all written in the details of token issuance/subsidies. Many proposals on the surface are "protocol optimization," but in reality, they are gradually shifting voting rights to a few addresses or multi-signature wallets. Before you realize it, it has become an established fact.

In the past couple of days, someone has been telling stories about AI Agents + automated trading, casually mentioning "letting agents automatically participate in governance on behalf of users." I thought it would be quite convenient... But after calculating the transaction fees + authorization + failure retry costs, the actual benefits might be completely eaten up by hidden costs, and it also introduces a security vulnerability. Anyway, before I vote, I now ask myself: Is this incentive making everyone stronger, or making a few people more secure? Don’t be misled by the word "automation."