Recently looked at several DAO proposals, all seemingly about "optimizing processes" and "enhancing participation," but upon scrolling down the attachments, I realized the real drama lies in the incentives: how voting power is distributed, who can propose, who gets the budget, who acts as the "executor." Basically, it's about embedding the power structure into parameters, and conveniently making opposition votes more expensive (either in time cost or reputation cost). Many people only look at the voting results, but I prefer to see who is designed to be the default winner.

By the way, on-chain large transfers and movements of exchange hot and cold wallets are also seen as "smart money," and I take a quick look at those too, but just like DAO governance: the action itself doesn't equal intent, it's more about finding evidence for the narrative. Anyway, I keep my microphone off during meetings and just leave after throwing out an inconvenient question.