Recently, a certain mainstream public chain has been upgrading/undergoing maintenance, and everyone in the community is guessing whether ecosystem projects will migrate.

I’ve been looking at proposals from several DAOs, and the more I read, the more I feel that whether to migrate or not is not just about "technology choices," but often driven by voting rules and incentives: for example, giving subsidies to the "migration executor," offering small rewards to voters, which sounds democratic but actually outsourcing costs and diluting responsibility.
A quick look at who can submit proposals, who can accelerate voting, and who holds emergency permissions… reveals that the power structure is already hardcoded.

When I read proposals now, I first look at three things: where the money comes from, who can take it, and who takes the blame; how the voting threshold is set; and whether there is an exit route in case of a failure.
What I’ve learned is not techniques, but that: don’t treat “approval” as the conclusion, but as a map of incentives to read.