I would like to throw in a new (at least I could not find this argument mentioned anywhere else) point of view about this unfortunate situation.
The argumentation is purely based on an engineering point of view and nothing in here should be taken as an endorsement of either Brantly’s believes nor others.
First, let us remind ourselves about the goals of ENS and the broader crypto ecosystem:
Building a credible neutral computing platform which does not differentiate between any human-made distinctions (e.g. religion, sexual orientation, self-identification of any form, and so many more).
However, one goal of building systems that engineers like to forget while developing, is that the system should also be used at some point. “Normal” people should interact with it and need to trust it (remember, “normal” people do not read solidity code).
Whats the best way to make “normal” people trust a system they will never totally understand, while keeping in mind that this huge number of people themselves hold all kinds of believes and distrust towards each other?
From an engineering point of view, the answer is the same as (nearly) always:
Let it be validated by a bunch of independent, distrusting each other, people.
If everyone agrees on the same result, we take it as a high confidence of being correct.
But why should we, as a community, not strive for even more security?
Instead of letting systems, ideas, proposals, etc, be validated by different frens, why not directly let it be built by people with different believes and, this certainly happens in DAOs, distrust towards each other?
Isn’t a system built by different entities with different believes arguably more credibly neutral than a system built by people living in the same “echo chamber”, all trusting each other, or not knowing about others’ controversial opinions?