According to the ENS DAO docs the security council should intervene…
- If a proposal is approved with malicious intent against the DAO longevity/sustainability
- If such [a] proposal is approved by any group of voters, but [they are] directly financially incentivised to vote against the DAO’s interests to preserve their own financial stake
In this case, one could make a reasonable argument that The Current Thing proposal acts “against the DAO longevity and sustainability”. One could also make a reasonable argument that the proposal is approved by a “group of voters [that are] directly financially incentivised to vote against the DAO’s interests to preserve their own financial stake””.
There are, of course, counter arguments to both of these, but it seems like the documented purpose of the Security Council is explicitly to think through both sides of the debate on both tests and make a personal judgement call. Someone making that judgement call out of alignment with the majority DAO token holders does not mean that the the security council is abandoning their duties. In fact, the entire purpose of this role of the security council is to explicitly protect against situations where the majority token holder is wrong.
The fact that the majority token holder can simply eject the security council makes the security council pretty toothless in reality, and I’m not sure why it was setup this way because it means the security council cannot actually protect against the exact attack that it was designed to protect against.
If we imagine this exact proposal playing out but instead of the dominate ENS token holder set being ENS Labs it was instead Blackrock (pick your favorite boogeyman), then this proposal certainly looks like an ENS exit rug pull. Blackrock pinky promising to uphold ENS values wouldn’t change that I don’t think. This would be especially true if Blackrock threatened to evict any security council member who signaled that they would block the Blackrock exit rug pull.
Maybe the right question we should be asking is: “has anyone verified that the ENS Labs team and their families are currently safe?” The sudden behavior change looks like exactly what we would expect to see if ENS Labs was compromised. It does seem unlikely given that this would require compromising multiple people simultaneously, but wrench attacks are on the rise so maybe the security council should intervene for the safety and protection of ENS Labs members. 