The opinions and desired outcomes expressed here seem reasonable, but they are being pursued without first running a proper evaluation i.e. The proposed Retro ([Temp Check] ENS Retro: An ENS DAO Retrospective).
The base proposal to simply wind everything down runs counter to a growing body of research exploring new ways to address coordination challenges in complex, decentralized systems.
Moving towards centralization feels like a major step backward for the broader d/acc mission (this is a personal opinion):
- d/acc: one year later
- [2310.19201] Open Problems in DAOs
- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/35djfj67zu9E9TDRH/structured-transparency-a-framework-for-addressing-use-mis
If strong empirical evidence clearly supported winding down the working groups, I would be open to that conclusion. But in the absence of such evidence, this proposal feels extremely short-sighted.
I strongly suspect there is a middle ground here, one that preserves decentralization while improving efficiency.
I would hope that that the retrospective could yield clear, agnostic outputs that inform whether reform, restructuring, or sunset is actually warranted, instead of defaulting to a full teardown.