These days, I've come across several DAO proposals, all seemingly about "optimizing incentives," but basically about redistributing who has more influence. Voting rights = tokens, that's true, but a common subtlety in these proposals is: rewarding "participants," with a narrow definition of participants, ultimately just a few old addresses repeatedly voting, while also raising the cost of opposition votes.

When mainstream public chains undergo upgrades or maintenance, the community starts speculating whether projects will migrate. I actually care less about whether they migrate or not; what's more important is whether migration proposals will smoothly slip in a new set of voting thresholds and delegation rules, with someone already lining up seats behind the scenes.

Next time I see the phrase "incentive adjustment," I might first focus on the flow of rewards and the delegation relationship map… How do you usually judge whether a proposal is about fixing mechanisms or fixing power?