I want to clarify that I did not consider labs new foundation to be a governance attack and think using the security council to block it would’ve been an overreach. Yet, by blocking the renewal based on the fear of a theoretical attack we are opening ourselves to a much less theoretical one.
The DAO is a $130M treasury safeguarded by at best $20M worth of tokens. This is a real issue. By changing the definition of a governance attack from the effect of the proposal into the legitimacy of the votes, we are opening up the possibility of legitimizing the fact that a well funded entity could simply buy enough ENS tokens to take over the treasury and protocol. It might be easy to detect vote renting or flash loans but we can’t prove a connection between the voter and another entity that just happens to open a short position on ENS which would turn the Security council teeth less and make the attack doubly profitable. Even if they don’t actually do a short position or take any illegitimate action they would still be very profitable in their takeover.
@nick.eth I don’t see why Labs has to fight this hard for this. If we take off the clause that the new foundation takes effective control of the treasury, and open the seats to vote, you’d still be able to vote the board you want and approve the budgets you requested. Our counter proposal for the foundation is pretty mild and non-antagonistic against Labs IMHO. But this proposal is just turning bad optics into worse.