Thank you Kenk for this detailed answer. In regard to Phase 2, I would recommend reorganizing the different governance process documents if the sequence you mention is mandatory. As you can see here README: GnosisDAO Governance Process :
It says ‘can be created’ and ‘can also move to phase 3 without community approval’. I think it’s important that this remains, as Forum accounts aren’t verified by holdings, and would deter the purpose of majority voting by GNO tokens.
You are comparing Gnosis DAO with a fraudulent project that had founders ask for a carve-out and were ready to take all the treasury with them. I think that’s a bad comparison. Sorry if I have a tendency to defend tokenholders rights. I’m not sure the proposal is about me, but more about the list of points that have been made here by multiple independent parties. I understand your disappointment, as an employee of Gnosis Ltd, but your attitude is part of the reason there is a chasm between operators that get paid by the treasury assets, and tokenholders that control the treasury assets.
Regarding your other points, feel free to read my previous reply.