| operations |
| comment | | "author":"oaaguy",<br>"body":"it's a valid question,<br> and I think people might be able to present valid arguments either way. \nArgument for allowing treasurers on the board is that they are highly aligned to the foundation's purpose. However,<br> like you say,<br> there is risk of abuse of power and a potential to lack a diversity of opinion. \n\nOn the matter of centralization of power: \nthere remains to be seen how much power either role will have to act. Treasurers are stated to only act in accordance with whitepaper or DAO-authorized transactions.\nIf the board members are known and KYC'd,<br> there might be some future scenario where a board member is pressured (either legally,<br> or not) to pursue some action without authorization from the DAO. If none of the board members have wallet keys,<br> it seems that might reduce that particular sort of risk. ",<br>"json_metadata":" \"tags\":[\"spsdao\" ,<br>\"app\":\"peakd\/2024.8.7\" ",<br>"parent_author":"femisapiens",<br>"parent_permlink":"re-spsdao-sk0keo",<br>"permlink":"re-femisapiens-sk0smb",<br>"title":"" |
|