Looking at DAO proposals, I mainly translate "how to distribute incentives, who can change parameters, who can perform emergency pauses."

Many votes seem to be about providing public goods, but upon closer inspection, they open reward channels to a few addresses or embed key permissions into a "temporary multi-signature," in other words, the power structure hasn't changed, just wrapped in different packaging.
Recently, everyone has been complaining that validators are taking too much, and MEV ordering is unfair. In fact, it's rooted in the same mindset: who sees first, who queues first, who can change the rules, the benefits flow to whoever has the advantage.
Proposals aren't afraid of complexity; they're afraid of writing interests and permissions vaguely.
As Chongqing dialect says: there's no need to be so mystical.