I looked at a DAO proposal yesterday, which on the surface was about "optimizing incentives / increasing participation," but in reality, every line was about how power is distributed: who can propose, who can change parameters, whose votes count more, and which addresses receive rewards. Frankly, voting is sometimes just the final step; if the incentive design is good earlier on, the outcome is almost predetermined. Recently, new L1/L2 projects are offering incentives to pull TVL, and old users complain about "mining, selling, and dumping." I can understand; often it's not that people don't want to hold long-term, but the structure itself encourages short-term arbitrage. Anyway, when I look at votes now, I first check "who's getting paid, who can veto with a single vote," then see if the reasons are well-written.