#DAO治理 Seeing this wave of Lighter operations, I have to be honest. The appeal mechanism sounds good, but a closer look reveals potential issues—low appeal numbers themselves indicate a problem. Users either don't know they can appeal at all or find that appealing doesn't really help.

The most frustrating part is their refusal to disclose the Sybil filtering algorithm, citing concerns about "targeted optimization." But think about it—it's precisely because the algorithm details are opaque that ordinary users can't determine whether they've been unfairly filtered out. What is DAO governance about? Transparency. Yet, for a core mechanism related to token distribution, users remain in the dark.

Here's another detail—all value revolves around tokens, with no two-way structure. It sounds like "we're all in the same boat," but in reality, early users, the team, and investors have vastly different interests. The costs and risks for the team and investors are completely different. When token prices fall, who do you think runs first?

Having experienced many projects like this, the套路 (套路) are pretty much the same: first, give you some sweeteners, then lock your chips in the name of transparency and governance. Whether it's the appeal mechanism or token incentives, they all end up as rhetoric. To survive long-term, remember—if DAO governance even hides its algorithms, it's not governance; it's just a scam.