I understand reservations on how the voting is done but I don’t see anything malicious. It is the will of the TRU token holders unless otherwise proven conclusively.
I see this as interference by actors with clear conflict of interest as highlighted by the post here: Refuting Governance Attack Allegations: Teragon's Defense
I would add that cancelling & ignoring a DAO vote without a proper justification by actors like Wallfacer & Cicada with clear conflict of interest acting on their own without the consent of TrueFi board would contitute a LEGAL issue.
Seems like most of the logic used in this post is simply propoganda because it doesn’t benefit the said actor and is based on incorect data / understanding of the token flow, OI and trading of instrumetns as is evident from this reply: MALICIOUS GOVERNANCE ATTACK: A Call to Action to Stop the Attack *OPINE IN THE NEXT 42 HOURS* - #12 by TheSkyHopper
TrueFi DAO has not made any real progress on products or expansion despite spending huge amounts of TRU tokens paid to wallfacer and Cicada. Teragon proposal throws fresh blood into TrueFi and charts a path to growth & evolution and seems to be at a fraction of the cost. I can understand why TRU holders would want to see this implemented.