I’m a bit surprised by this post, to be honest. According to the second update on the hack:
Now that we have some breathing space, we will share our learnings and put the next decision — whether or not to execute a hard fork — to the DAO for a vote.
We will also propose a set of principles to guide us in any future challenges. This way, we can align on a framework for how various parts of the chain infrastructure (bridges, validators, stablecoin issuers, etc.) can and should react under specific scenarios. These will also be shared for open debate.
I was expecting at least a forum post presenting different proposals for the hard fork (and I would also like to know whether any alternatives were considered). I do not feel confident about executing a hard fork while notifying all validators only 10 days in advance. It feels rushed, even though I know you have been working extremely hard since the hack to find the best possible solution.
Although I was not affected by the hack, I want to thank everyone involved for the hard work. That said, in my view, this is not a decision that the community should be expected to make within such a short time window. Hard forks are usually announced months in advance in order to properly coordinate the community and gather feedback.
Additionally, more clarity about the Safe that is intended to receive the funds would improve transparency regarding what validators are actually being asked to vote on. Given the current situation (as mentioned by serenita_luca), this does not look good.
I’m not against the hard work, but a little bit of more transparency and communication will be very much appreciated, on top of a temperature check of the DAO to understand if the DAO want’s to do this step in the history of the chain. Again, thanks for the hard work you are doing