There are certain aspects I agree with, but this feels unnecessarily aggressive.

I haven't participated enough yet to understand most of the issues brought forward in this proposal. I'm onchain verifying I know this exists but not enough to be for or against.

As the author of Prop 39, I wanted to respond on the record regarding Prop 40 while not influencing the vote so chiming in here close to the end. While there is always room for improvement and some ideas to be adopted, many of the criticisms leveled here are factually incorrect or presented without important context. Additionally, Prop 40 fails to acknowledge and contextualize all of the out of scope mission critical work that was prioritized and performed for the DAO as well many months without compensation. I've worked with the community for 2 years now and am thrilled to see the overwhelming support on Prop 39. Thank you to the Builder community for your continued trust.

Appreciate some of the feedback and see value in bringing some of these points for discussion but since this prop does not do anything onchain, it's unnecessary to have it as a proposal (I've often expressed this view). Much of this could be accomplished or at least addressed as part of community calls.

Based on my rubric evaluation, this counterproposal scores 42 out of 50—one of the strongest proposals we’ve seen. It addresses longstanding gaps in accountability, role clarity, and financial transparency that I’ve raised consistently over the past two years. Specifically: + Unbundles decisions (e.g., removing the LLC/C-Corp language for separate review) + Introduces milestone-based funding tied to public deliverables, aligned with DAO values + Establishes clear role separation & rotation to reduce risk and gatekeeping + Prioritizes community empowerment & constructive governance over personality politics These changes not only improve operational structure but help realign BuilderDAO with its mission to be a public goods leader. For anyone tracking the health of our treasury and the need for sustainable processes, this is a step forward. I’m voting FOR. PS: FTR, this counter proposal was not written by me, despite the conspiracy theory. As a new DAO member, Mary put in a tremendous amount of effort to understand this platform and how it’s being managed. Thank you for having the courage to voice your concerns, and for proposing a thoughtful path forward.

I'm voting YES on Prop 40 as a public record of concern for the direction BuilderDAO has taken. What we’re witnessing is not sustainable stewardship of a public good—it’s mismanagement that’s become normalized under the guise of time served. I may be considered “new” here, but I’m not new to seeing organizational failure when it’s right in front of me. Time-in doesn’t equal credibility. And I won’t validate someone’s role just because they’ve convinced a few people in a Discord server that they’re essential. That mindset is part of why the DAO is not showing sustainability and is not thriving.