I think it's actually a good sign that they're running a governance vote in-response to backlash. The first proposal was seemingly executed with very very littl

I think it's actually a good sign that they're running a governance vote in-response to backlash. The first proposal was seemingly executed with very very little time, and only 1% of the governance token was actually required [1][0]. This proposal is a great gesture, but seriously: as if voting to takeover funds wasn't a decisive enough thing, doing so with less than 24 hours of notice and only requiring 1% of the governance body to vote does not inspire any confidence that this is a democratically led effort. I know there are a lot of skeptics and a lot of believers in cryptocurrency. But this isn't even the currency part. This is just organization rules, logistics, and management. Maybe they should have a proposal or two about basic governance minimums and standards? Why are these the only two votes they've ever had? This is why most legislative bodies have rules for how votes are conducted, how votes are counted, etc. Solend doesn't have any of this infrastructure, and literally their first vote was a major "we need emergency powers" vote. I understand that they consider this an existential risk to their platform, but having a second vote, to undo the first vote and implement countermeasures for the existential risk does, in my eyes, reduce the my belief that the threat is/was existential in the first place. [0]: https://realms.today/dao/SLND/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYiZDHVCoLAuDtVFgJD8kYChJ4/explore https://realms.today/dao/SLND/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYi... [1]: https://realms.today/dao/SLND/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYiZDHVCoLAuDtVFgJD8kYChJ4 https://realms.today/dao/SLND/proposal/HuaL6cDtuNtfnJgvwMnYi...