About a poll:
We have to ask ourselves, how many of these voters are conflicted? Further is: what about the silent majority?
I have argued that the voting cannot be irrefutably evidenced as an attack - then how is it right to use a canceller function, simply because the losing side of voting happen to be on the signing page, just because things go they way they don’t like?
I’m going to lead by example here: you can take a look at DWF’s proposal which just recently passed, and as a board member I wasn’t for this proposal.
Because it passes, do I make a big fuss over this? No, because the DAO voted for it and went through. In fact, as a foundation board member, I’ve been working to onboard DWF as corporate counterparty in the past two weeks, despite being on holiday with my family.
I’d rather like to think of the positives a DWF can bring now that it is here - how we can work them on other things - and maybe even (dare I say?) to see there’s ways if they want to open a borrowing pool here at Truefi, and many more things. Instead of calling an attack simply it didn’t go my way, I’d rather like to think how to work along with someone who comes in with my support or not.
So yes, as the stakeTRU voting came through - I mean after all wasn’t more activism and voting the incentive for this proposal: [TFIP-10] Increasing stkTRU gov participation & a look to future protocol spending?
So in conclusion: I fully support Teragon’s proposal and 100% disagree with using the canceller function.