{"id":143,"name":null,"username":"0xPhilipp","avatar_template":"/user_avatar/forum.phoenix.money/0xphilipp/{size}/7_2.png","created_at":"2026-10-16T08:28:11.643Z","cooked":"\u003cp\u003eA272 was clear: a removal necessarily will always come with a move to 2-of-3 so one remaining Director could not unilaterally veto the Foundation, bylaws and the foundation board explicitly states that the majority decides. Routine payments passing afterwards do not erase a 2-2 deadlock on a fundamental Stewardship issue. The Bylaws are also not contradictory: the Emergency Supervisor cannot directly remove a Director, but can instruct Stewardship to facilitate removal. And the missing standing Supervisor is a separate governance issue, not a reason the Emergency Supervisor process suddenly cannot be used.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is again a diversion into procedure instead of addressing why the proposal exists.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommunity members and validators should read the actual substance and consider the risks Terra has been exposed to. While I have repeatedly been the one identifying problems, escalating them and putting out fires, serious security risks have been downplayed to the point where Terra came dangerously close to catastrophic liquidity loss.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThat is what this is about: mandate, contribution, governance, security judgment, trust and accountability. Not procedural word games.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI will not accept potential legal exposure arising from potentially negligent conduct by another Director. When someone downplays existential security risks while questioning whether Terra should even remain focused on DeFi, I genuinely have to wonder whether you even hold meaningful assets on Terra yourself.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnd this is exactly why Terra Governance is being asked to appoint an independent Emergency Supervisor: not to accept my version of events, but to review the internal discussions, speak with all four Directors, assess the facts independently and determine how the Adverse Event should be resolved. The proposal explicitly leaves both outcomes open.\u003c/p\u003e","post_number":5,"post_type":1,"posts_count":92,"updated_at":"2026-10-16T08:33:21.769Z","reply_count":0,"reply_to_post_number":3,"quote_count":0,"incoming_link_count":8,"reads":23,"readers_count":22,"score":44.6,"yours":false,"topic_id":47,"topic_slug":"phoenix-foundation-appointment-of-an-emergency-supervisor","display_username":null,"primary_group_name":null,"flair_name":null,"flair_url":null,"flair_bg_color":null,"flair_color":null,"flair_group_id":null,"badges_granted":[],"version":2,"can_edit":false,"can_delete":false,"can_recover":false,"can_see_hidden_post":false,"can_wiki":false,"user_title":null,"reply_to_user":{"id":1,"username":"vini","name":"Vini | SCV-Security, PD","avatar_template":"/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/c77e96/{size}.png"},"bookmarked":false,"raw":"A272 was clear: a removal necessarily will always come with a move to 2-of-3 so one remaining Director could not unilaterally veto the Foundation, bylaws and the foundation board explicitly states that the majority decides. Routine payments passing afterwards do not erase a 2-2 deadlock on a fundamental Stewardship issue. The Bylaws are also not contradictory: the Emergency Supervisor cannot directly remove a Director, but can instruct Stewardship to facilitate removal. And the missing standing Supervisor is a separate governance issue, not a reason the Emergency Supervisor process suddenly cannot be used.\n\nThis is again a diversion into procedure instead of addressing why the proposal exists.\n\nCommunity members and validators should read the actual substance and consider the risks Terra has been exposed to. While I have repeatedly been the one identifying problems, escalating them and putting out fires, serious security risks have been downplayed to the point where Terra came dangerously close to catastrophic liquidity loss.\n\nThat is what this is about: mandate, contribution, governance, security judgment, trust and accountability. Not procedural word games.\n\nI will not accept potential legal exposure arising from potentially negligent conduct by another Director. When someone downplays existential security risks while questioning whether Terra should even remain focused on DeFi, I genuinely have to wonder whether you even hold meaningful assets on Terra yourself.\n\nAnd this is exactly why Terra Governance is being asked to appoint an independent Emergency Supervisor: not to accept my version of events, but to review the internal discussions, speak with all four Directors, assess the facts independently and determine how the Adverse Event should be resolved. The proposal explicitly leaves both outcomes open.","actions_summary":[],"moderator":true,"admin":true,"staff":true,"user_id":3,"hidden":false,"trust_level":2,"deleted_at":null,"user_deleted":false,"edit_reason":null,"can_view_edit_history":true,"wiki":false,"post_url":"/t/phoenix-foundation-appointment-of-an-emergency-supervisor/47/5","reactions":[],"current_user_reaction":null,"reaction_users_count":0,"current_user_used_main_reaction":false,"can_accept_answer":false,"can_unaccept_answer":false,"accepted_answer":false,"topic_accepted_answer":null}