MempoolNomad

Recently came across a few DAO proposals, superficially written as gentle: optimization, strengthening, incentives... but upon reading the details, I found that the real drama is all about "who can get subsidies, who is qualified to vote, where the money goes after voting." Frankly, voting many times isn't about right or wrong; it's about redistributing power structures, using incentives to conveniently keep everyone's attention. Outside, people are still arguing that ETF capital flows are a switch for rises and falls, even using U.S. stock market risk appetite as an explanation. I can't help

Seeing DAO voting proposals can be more exciting than watching candlestick charts... On the surface, it says “increase participation,” but when you get to the last line, you realize the incentives are only fed to a few fixed addresses—the rest of the people are just backdrop. To put it plainly, many proposals don’t really want to “become more decentralized”; they’re just redrawing the map of power—who can submit proposals, who can get subsidies, and who gets to decide how the rules get changed.
Lately, people have been talking again about social mining and fan tokens. “Attention is mining” sou