Recently, I've been a bit obsessed with DAO proposals, claiming to be "community governance," but after flipping through a few pages, you can really smell the incentive behind it: how voting rights are divided, who can initiate proposals, how high the thresholds are—all secretly mapping out the distribution of power. Many proposals seem to discuss features on the surface, but what they truly care about underneath are "who gets the budget, how to write KPIs, who holds veto power." In essence, it's a mechanism for dividing spoils within the organization, just dressed up in on-chain clothing.

I thought people would care more about whether the product is being used, but the most popular comments are "can we get voting rewards" and "can we delegate to big whales to save trouble"... Well, that's just human nature. By the way, I also thought about the recent mainstream public chain upgrade/maintenance, and everyone in the group is guessing whether the ecosystem will migrate. I think we shouldn't rush to argue about migration first; instead, look at who has the authority to make the decision in the proposal and who will bear the migration costs. The answers are basically written in those few lines of incentives.