The holders of the governance token had to vote on whether to seize the funds. Something being "decentralized" is different from something lacking any means wha

The holders of the governance token had to vote on whether to seize the funds. Something being "decentralized" is different from something lacking any means whatsoever to evolve. Some of these DAOs are really dumb, and at the end of the day there is a team just asking for "straw poll" in a very real sense of the community before taking unilateral action, but there is no reason to invoke that here: the contract might simply be delegated to another contract on chain that allows an on chain vote to update the code to another version. To me the damning thing here is that they have a 1% quorum and it was barely met and it seems like a large amount of that 1% might have been one large holder and so much like how democracy is certainly decentralized and yet in some countries (such as mine) no one votes and it gets awkward how decisions are made, that's also the state of decentralized organizations :(.