0x9e0e9d25…57b1sent to0x6f3e6272…223d·#23,306,541·view on Etherscan
If the cost of simplifying is pushing people out for valuing their privacy, then what we are really doing is narrowing the definition of who counts as a member. That is not simplification; it is gatekeeping. And if we are fine with that, then we should stop pretending decentralization is our pillar at all, because at that point it is just marketing.
+1
> The main pillar of a DAO is decentralization, and having multiple frontends with different approaches and experiences is one of the clearest ways to keep that pillar strong. When users have the freedom to choose how they interact with the DAO, it prevents single points of control, and that’s what decentralization is supposed to mean in practice.
>
> In the past, the DAO chose to adopt DUNA as its structural base. That decision wasn’t free; it came with costs, both financially and philosophically. Choosing a single structure always does. And while it might have seemed like a practical choice at the time, it locked us into a path that now raises serious questions about whether the trade-offs are worth it.
>
> So here’s what I want to put to the members. Does the cost–benefit in this proposal really make sense? Is the cost mentioned here something you would consider reasonable when the outcome is essentially bowing down to censorship? Because that’s the crux of it. When we decide to exclude known contributors simply because they prioritize their privacy, we’re not just saving money or simplifying operations; we’re giving up on one of the main values that the crypto ecosystem was built on.
>
> Let’s not forget why this entire movement exists. It was designed to protect individual privacy, to grant financial freedom, to create a system where people could participate without being forced to compromise on their principles. If we start making decisions that punish members for choosing privacy, then what exactly are we standing for? At that point, we’re not only contradicting the idea of decentralization, we’re actively undermining the ethos that makes this ecosystem different from the old world we were trying to improve on.
>
> The cost here is more than just a line item on a proposal; it’s the cost of legitimizing censorship. It’s the cost of saying some people can’t contribute unless they give up what matters most to them. If we’re willing to pay that price, then we’re admitting that decentralization is negotiable, and that privacy is only important until it gets inconvenient.
>
> So I’ll put it bluntly: do you think the cost–benefit here actually aligns with the pillars of this DAO? Or are we letting short-term convenience pull us away from the principles we claim to uphold? As members, you have the power to decide that with every single vote. Proposals can change the direction block by block, but only if we pay attention to what’s really at stake. This is one of those moments where the choice isn’t just about money; it’s about whether we keep holding up the very pillars that define what a DAO is supposed to be.