@cp0x — fair points, and worth answering directly rather than leaving them to sit.
On the core objection, that this was the Association’s call and not a DAO vote, that’s accurate, and we won’t pretend otherwise. The context is that governance was formally paused on March 20 (link), for reasons we set out in full at the time: the Tally wind-down, the structural problems we’d flagged across DAO governance (low participation, quorum fragility, the gap between votes and execution), and an unsettled regulatory backdrop. This decision was made inside that already-paused state, not as a one-off way around a vote.
Taking your three points in turn:
-
You’re right that the rails (Snapshot, the Uniswap/Arbitrum tooling) technically still exist. The pause was never about missing tooling, it was a deliberate decision to stop running token-holder votes until the model is redesigned. Spinning up an ad-hoc vote on one decision while the wider system is explicitly paused would cut against the reason for pausing, and given the regulatory guidance we cited in March around holders expecting outcomes from the managerial efforts of others, it isn’t a step we’ll take casually right now.
-
On the abruptness, this is exactly why we posted ahead of the cliff date rather than on it. The change removes a restriction on investor tokens; it imposes nothing new on token holders, and community allocations are untouched. We surfaced the reasoning early so participants had time to react before the date, not after.
-
One legal point, plainly: the Association is the entity legally responsible for these decisions, and token-holder votes have always been advisory rather than binding. That was disclosed. So even before the pause, this wasn’t a decision a vote would have bindingly controlled, though we recognise that is the structural critique you’re raising, and it’s the one the governance redesign is meant to answer. The thread stays open, and feedback here feeds directly into that work.