🗳️ Voting NO — This Proposal Bypasses Key Norms of Legitimate Governance
I want to make clear: I appreciate the work that’s gone into drafting this proposal. I also agree with some of the values it tries to enshrine — particularly the commitment to civic trust, DAO maturity, and inclusive infrastructure. However, I can’t support this framework as it currently stands, and here’s why:
⸻
1. Process Integrity Matters More Than Speed
The proposal introduces major governance structures — council appointments, veto powers, grant pathways — but none of them were validated through prior community input or consensus signaling.
I understand the instinct to “bootstrap” authority in the name of operational continuity. But in DAOs, authority derives from participation, not proximity to the original idea. Even the best frameworks are hard to trust when they emerge post-hoc.
⸻
2. The Council Model Isn’t Rooted in the Existing Tokenholder Base
Several appointed council members were either gifted tokens or have unclear participatory records. At least one appointee appears to hold no token at all. I support the idea of appointing credible experts — but not without transparency on how selections were made and what standards were applied.
If the Council is meant to reflect long-term stewardship, then so should its onboarding process. A token vote on every seat, including initial appointees, would have made that easier to support.
⸻
3. Veto Powers Should Be Community-Ratified, Not Hard-Coded Top-Down
I recognize the intention behind the veto — to protect mission integrity. But the scope is overly broad and lacks safeguards.
Right now, the Council can:
• Block any proposal they subjectively deem a threat
• Act without clear transparency mechanisms
• Override a community majority with no hard limits or appeals process
That’s not a check-and-balance. That’s a gate.
⸻
4. The Framing of the Founder Resignation Feels One-Sided
Resignation is valid. So is disagreement. But this proposal seems to use one founder’s departure to reinforce a narrative that delegitimizes dissent and consolidates control. That’s not how pluralism works.
It would have been healthier to allow a neutral, time-bound community review of that event, instead of embedding it into a sweeping governance overhaul.
⸻
In Summary:
We can — and should — revisit governance design. But let’s do it through a transparent community process with upfront signaling and shared authorship.
This proposal creates more questions than answers. I’m voting NO not out of hostility, but in defense of the kind of DAO I want to be part of — one that earns legitimacy through openness, not architecture.