I think the most relevant information on this is here: Clarifications on AGP-41: Acquisition of DOTs
The proposer @rzurrer is involved with the web3 foundation / polkadot as discussed above.
In regards to conflict of interest, I think it’s important to take that with a grain of salt, everyone in this thread may have different interests, and many (or most) of the people posting in this thread had not ever posted or engaged in the community prior to this issue. You do not need to hold ANT to post here or to be heard, you don’t need to hold ANT to submit a proposal. Someone who holds a lot of ANT but even more of another asset may still be less economically aligned with the project than someone who has a small stack of ANT but is passionate about the project and spends hours working on it. While its tempting to try and get everyone to truthfully disclose all of their interests and try and gleam their motivations for saying or doing some specific thing, its probably best to look closely at the proposal itself and whether it is good or bad and make an independent determination.
I’m not sure why allowing a proposal to be voted on would not align with Aragon’s values. It’s totally reasonable for ANT holders to reject the proposal because the terms of the agreement are under some non-disclosure agreement. Giving ANT holders a voice in important decisions is I think strongly aligned with the core values of Aragon, if we expect the Association to filter out any and all potentially controversial votes from the AGP process then how can we expect to learn anything meaningful about where ANT holders as a group stand on issues?
This is an interesting challenge, as if all votes are low stakes, there is actually very little incentive to get involved and participate in the process.
Right now there is not a tremendous amount of liquidity for ANT, so I’m not sure how easy it would be for a well funded organization which hasn’t accumulated a large stake of ANT over an extended period of time (and intends to hold that position for an extended period of time) to really swing the outcome of this vote on a whim. If a well funded organization does decide to take a long term position in ANT, shouldn’t they be considered legitimate stakeholders in the project? If not, why not?
I think the main argument is one of expectations and norms, and the idea that the introduction of new stakeholders will result in the project diverging from those established expectations and norms within the community. As I mention in another thread, the role of the association in the current AGP process is to ensure that proposals meet some subjective criteria. It’s not a straightforward job, and proposals like AGP-41 can be difficult to judge. If the association is heavy handed in filtering proposals, then the impact that ANT holders have on project governance is minimal, and if the filtering process is too loose, then the process can devolve into a tyranny of the majority. Personally, I think allowing AGP-41 to be voted on was the correct call, even though it is controversial and I do not know what the outcome will be.
I’ve so far avoided taking a specific position on this issue but will go ahead and do so now. I think that ANT voters should vote no on AGP-41, not because I don’t think it is reasonable or prudent to consider acquiring DOTs, but rather because the proposal was submitted and finalized very close to the submission deadline. Had the proposal been submitted earlier perhaps discussion could have resulted in a proposal which was more agreeable, that included a maximum acceptable price. I would like to see proposals made earlier in the process and refined based on community feedback, and since there is no urgent need to acquire DOTs in this voting cycle specifically, I think it would be healthy for ANT holders to reject this particular proposal and then it could be discussed and resubmitted in the future in a hopefully less polarizing manner.