0xfede2257…3b09sent to0x2a019853…277f·#17,536,573·view on Etherscan
We object to this proposal, as we see it as a covert governance attack, wasting the time and energy of governance participants.
Cozy is a credible-neutrality insurance protocol that we value highly. Similar models have been adopted by Liquity and Aave (...) and have stood the test of the market. For this reason, we are optimistic about Cozy's future.
But it offers a crap insurance proposal for nounsdao with grossly unequal risks and benefits to recklessly usurp the time and energy of all governance participants and covertly complete its product seeding user capture plan. This behavior is disgusting to our researcher of the proposal.
Our opposition stems from two main reasons:
1. Cozy currently lacks the capacity to address the issues it claims to solve. Its insurance pool is only $500,000, and its contract has only been deployed for a month, yet it claims to protect $1,000,000 in assets. For policyholders, this presents a garbage product with a severe imbalance of risk and reward.
2. The second reason comes from the opinion of the proposal researcher: I view this proposal as a covert governance attack. The time and energy invested by the Nouns collective in governance is a pure public good, and Cozy's blatant consumption of all governance participants' time and energy is a Standard hitchhiking behavior. It forced me to spend an hour researching its mechanisms, gathering data, and creating documents to explain to our squad why its proposal is terrible.. If there are too many proposals like Cozy's, I won't invest time in researching and debating Nouns' proposals anymore, which infuriates me.