what I’m saying is this:
lets say we had 2 systems, one is with little amount of uncertainty and the other with considerable amount of uncertainty, any rational agent at any time will be choosing system with less uncertainty, thats just common sense, people dislike uncertainty
if the rules of the game are changing fairly frequently = that is extra uncertainty
In my mind it is pretty much required from ENS to be as stable as rock to be “global public good naming protocol”, as such introducing constant policy changes directly contradicts mission statement
Voting “yes” on this is like approving more uncertainty as the very first DAO proposal that in turn sets a potentially dangerous signal to general public
Same principle applies for example to changes introduced to .eth names annual fee mechanism
I think that reasoning is enough for me personally to reject this proposal, on top of that for community as a whole sum of COSTs and BENEFITs of approving this clearly is NEGATIVE (as I argued here Retrospective 2x airdrop multiplier application process for "unfortunate edge cases" - #18 by SpikeWatanabe.eth)
I personally just don’t see how this can be approved, its not even a borderline case in my opinion