I wish to express my consideration of de-anonymization with the simple understanding that law enforcement can quickly find someone to arrest when a multi-signatory commits a criminal act against a DAO. That’s what binds stewards of public funds.
Also why are others being asked to provide improvements to a proposal that clearly lacks the conditions for implementation? There is no basis for the emergence of such a proposal, so why continue to accuse others of doing something ridiculous. As I said before, another member opposes your proposal, so why don’t you accuse him of not offering ideas for improvement?
Sometimes setting aside is the best thing to do, and you don’t have to push this agenda based on your personal will. My objection is not obstruction, it is a demand for compliance and de-risking. I don’t need to explain further if you’re deep in a semantic quagmire.
Also, I’m curious about the fact that in your ideology, inactive multi-signs in DAO could cause stagnation, and you also think that some of them bz, zylo, and silke have sometimes completely absent. So why keep what you consider inactive multi-signs in your proposal?
Also, paradoxically you say in your proposal that they are active multi-signs. What exactly went wrong with that?