Recently came across a few DAO proposals, and the more I look at them, the more I feel that voting, on the surface, is “community consensus,” but underneath it’s really a structural design for how incentives are distributed and who has more say. To put it simply, some proposals are written really beautifully, but on closer inspection they amount to shifting budgets and permissions into the hands of a few addresses, and the voter turnout is still pretty high… Maybe everyone is too lazy to dig into the details, or they’re being pushed along by expectations of airdrops.

Outside, people are also interpreting ETF capital flows and the risk appetite in the US stock market alongside crypto’s up-and-down moves, and it’s starting to make me feel a bit worn out. Either way, emotions arrive quickly and leave just as quickly. On-chain, it’s still the same old thing: the rules are written between the lines, and whoever can influence the rules wins half the battle.

Before I vote, I first check “where the money comes from, who it’s sent to, and whether it can be revoked.” If I don’t understand, I just abstain—staying in the shadows is also fine. I still believe in this: take it slow, and eventually better, more credible governance will emerge.