0xb00a93ff…b78fsent to0xe3f8d548…8b1a·#17,096,671·view on Etherscan
Although I do not agree with many points in this proposal, I believe it is worth exploring that veto power shift from a single entity {Zora} to a selected group of active and interested token holders who participate often, dedicate their time, and have knowledge of the current state of DAO affairs.
Group consensus from active and interested individuals is a way to ensure the DAOs best interests are taken into consideration, as a decision has to happen through conversation. A single entity with veto power has no duty to share its reasons for a veto, which can lead to divergence and tension among token holders.
An edge thought on the matter — as the DAO grows to have more token holders and their interests shift the nature and direction of the DAO's future, they should have a chance to vote/decide on who holds the power to deny their proposals access. If that ends up being a single entity, that would be fine as long as it came from a decision made by the collective token holders.