Recently reviewed several DAO proposals, and the more I look at it, the more I feel that voting, to put it simply, isn't "community opinion." It's more like whoever designs the incentives can conveniently embed the power structure into the terms. For example, giving rewards to contributors sounds quite righteous, but upon closer inspection of lock-up periods, whitelists, and voting power bonuses, it might ultimately concentrate votes in the hands of a few people.

Outside, people are explaining the rise and fall of the crypto market using ETF capital flows and risk appetite in the US stock market. I also take a look, but when it comes to on-chain governance, no matter how heated the emotions are, they can't override "the rules written in the proposals." Anyway, before I vote now, I first look for hidden switches: who gets incentives, who can change parameters, who has emergency permissions. Don't be fooled by the high APR sweet talk; the real pitfall isn't the returns but the permissions. Just remember the word "switch."