Recently, I've been reviewing several DAO voting proposals again. To put it simply, on the surface it's "community decision-making," but in reality, it's filled with discussions on how to distribute incentives, who can submit proposals, and a power structure where one vote equals ten votes. Especially those seemingly warm phrases like "reward participation" and "subsidize contributions"—a closer look reveals they're gradually consolidating voting power into a few addresses, and active users are actually being guided to spam the process... As I watch the net fund flow and the distribution of voting rights, I feel it's more reliable than just looking at slogans.

By the way, during the time when a certain mainstream blockchain was upgrading/maintaining, everyone in the group was guessing whether the project would migrate. But I care more about: if it does migrate, will the DAO immediately issue an "emergency proposal," then use a time window + incentives to lock in votes? Anyway, whenever I see words like "limited time" or "temporary parameters," I get a bit cautious—whether it's outrageous or not, you know what I mean.