The most annoying thing about DAO voting isn't the arguments, but proposals that read like "upgrade optimization," with all the incentives and power structures hidden in the attachments: who gets subsidies, who can access information first, whose multi-signature keys have an extra key. To put it simply, voting isn't about choosing "right or wrong," but about confirming who can decide where the money flows and who takes the blame if something goes wrong.

Recently, the staking/sharing security model has been criticized as a "copycat," and I think it's quite similar: the yield stacking is written very beautifully, but risk stacking is just a line saying "see the documentation for details." My mom asked me a few days ago, "Isn't voting just everyone deciding together?" I could only say... in theory, yes, but in practice, you have to see who designed the voting questions, who set the thresholds, and who took the incentives. Anyway, whenever I see the word "alignment," I frown first.