This proposal looks like greed dressed up as governance reform. To me, it is basically a governance attack on the ENS treasury.
The unwise part is that ENS Labs has already been paid a significant amount of money, and many tokenholders can reasonably question whether the DAO has seen enough visible return on its spending over the years, with Namechain being the clearest example.
The interesting part is that, so far, ENS Labs has not really been accountable to anyone, since only a small fraction of tokens participate in governance. If they had simply said something like, “Let’s increase our annual budget to $50M,” I do not think many people could have argued against it.
That would have been a much smarter way to get what they want than trying to change the governance structure and capture the treasury directly.
It is also strategically reckless to damage a potential decentralized identity layer, along with the value of the ownership layer behind it, for what looks like a short-term attempt to centralize control over the treasury.
In regulated financial markets, actions like this could create serious legal consequences for the parties involved, since it essentially looks like majority power being used to transfer economic control away from the wider ownership base.
But since this is an unregulated and “trustless” world, I guess this is what happens when voting power is enough to replace legitimacy.