Just for the sake of this dialogue… instead of completely ignoring the proposal, all anyone would have had to do is type your specific, short statement, along with “hey, this proposal has a critical flaw -” and there could have been an interesting discussion with appropriate expectations set. I believe that’s the purpose of a sandbox… to push and pull and break and surprise and fail and try and…
TBH I never thought this proposal would pass. I thought it would create dialogue, since there has been very little of that on the telegram channel or DAOTalk forum. I expected through dialogue to come to some understanding and agreement of what the community wanted or what was possible with the technology. Instead, the damned thing passed.
It’s great to highlight these disconnects… the average user has no clue (should they?) that the communications part of the DAO they patronize is completely disconnected from the actual DAO. It gets to a key idea - “what is a DAO, technically?”
Is it just a set of smart contracts attached to wallets?
Does it also include parts of the platform that “hosts” it (I don’t know if host is the right word)?
What sovereignty does it have over the myriad communication channels that exist, if any, and is that a problem (I’d wager that the answer today is none, and that seems like a bad thing)?
Today we think of a DAO as a connected system, the package, the heart AND the lungs AND the skin. It looks like that is incorrect, however.
Good luck in your next adventures. Thanks for the names of folks to reach out to.