We don’t seek to block this proposal indefinitely. Rather, we’ve noticed irregularities surrounding it and strive to enhance its due diligence and general proposal process. More specifically, there have been undisclosed conflicts of interest, irregular voting behavior, misalignment between long-term stakeholders, and a general lack of understanding of what is being proposed.
We don’t strictly oppose Teragon’s offer, and we recognize it’s not our duty to evaluate proposals themselves. We need to revamp the proposal process, and we invite Teragon to join us in this. Teragon will have an opportunity to make another proposal.
While we remain strong on our stance, we will not use our canceller powers to block this proposal simply because it is not executable—the proposal will fail because it was configured incorrectly. But we’d like to make it clear that we remain firm in our stance that the proposal process has been insufficient in protecting stakeholder interests.
Thank you for the post @TylerEther. As one of the signers on the Canceller Multisig, I would like to make it clear to the community that I agree with what you’ve written here. Specifically, there appear to be significant irregularities around how this proposal was made, and usage of the canceller would in my opinion be appropriate in this case.
If you refer to the powers and responsibilities vested in the cancellers in the original proposal establishing the Canceller Multisig [TFIP-6]:
Based on a review of the circumstances, this proposal appears to me to be both faulty and potentially adversarial, and so would be subject to cancellation.
I would like it to be clear to the community that the decision to not cancel this proposal is due to the fact that it has no effect when executed (the transaction will be reverted) and so has no impact on the DAO. Therefore cancellation is unnecessary.