Lately, I’ve been looking at the voting records of a few DAOs, and it’s pretty interesting. For the same proposal to “optimize tokenomics,” some people see long-term value, while others see unlocking and cashing out—put simply, behind the voting interface are completely different incentive structures.

What annoys me most is that kind of “one person, one vote on the surface, but actually the whales run the show” design. You can’t really say they’re wrong, because they’ve genuinely locked up their funds. But what about ordinary participants? For my part, I’ll check the holder distribution first before deciding whether it’s worth my time to study the proposal. Sometimes, “forget it,” and even following the big players saves me brainpower.

Oh, and with funding rates being so extreme lately, the community is arguing about whether it should reverse or keep squeezing—really, it’s the same mindset as debating inside a DAO whether to stop-loss the treasury. It all comes down to where you sit, except on-chain data can’t be fooled.