The past two days in the group, there's been talk about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and rumors of "de-pegging," everyone gets emotional and starts looking for a sense of security. I used to be quite paranoid too, always saying "I only look at on-chain data," believing that data wouldn't lie. Later I realized, with DAO voting, you can see the voting results on-chain, but you can't see the hidden hands behind the proposals.

Some proposals are superficially "budget optimization" or "increased participation," but when you read further, you find out how rewards are distributed, who can claim them, and how delegated authority is concentrated, which effectively solidifies the power structure. To put it simply, incentive design is like a steering wheel—you think you're voting on "features," but you're actually voting on "who will have the final say." My current approach is: I look at on-chain data, I gauge emotions, but I first focus on the incentive targets and threshold design of the proposals—don't let love for the project be used as fuel by others.