Recently looked at a few DAO proposals, on the surface talking about "optimizing incentives" and "increasing participation," but flipping a couple of pages reveals the power structure: who can propose, who can change parameters, who’s getting voting rights more cheaply. The more elaborate the rewards are written, the easier it is to mislead people, eventually turning into a small group of people who receive subsidies long-term, while others just go along for the ride and give a thumbs-up. It’s quite similar to the recent Layer 2 disputes over TPS/fees/ecosystem subsidies—lots of noise, but the real impact is where the money flows and who gets to decide the rules. Forget it, speaking plainly: before voting, don’t just look at the “candy” being handed out, pay more attention to permissions and the revocation mechanisms; otherwise, if something goes wrong, there’s nowhere to cry. Our operations team is even more sensitive—if a proposal involves client upgrades or penalty parameters, and there’s no audit or rollback plan, I’d rather not vote first.