PhoenixPinion, your arithmetic is right. Your conclusion is where we part ways.
The 75% threshold in a four-member body is not an accident. It protects the DAO from two people capturing every outcome.
But here is the operational fact you keep sliding past. A failed vote is a static event. A 2-2 split on a composition question is not static. It repeats. Every proposal touching governance hits the same wall. Every funding decision becomes a proxy fight. The Foundation stops functioning as a decision-making body. That is not “some are displeased with the outcome.” That is a structural fault.
You call the supervisor irrelevant because it does not solve the threshold problem. Correct. It does not change the 75% rule. It does not shrink the board. It does not touch the treasury. What it does is narrower and more useful it creates a four-week, community-selected process to break the procedural block so the threshold debate you want to have can actually happen on a functioning Foundation.
Here is the technical point. The Bylaws define the Emergency Supervisor as a remedy for a continuing Adverse Event that the internal bodies cannot resolve. A 2-2 deadlock on composition is not a policy disagreement anymore. It is a continuing inability to govern. The supervisor investigates, hears all four Directors, and issues a determination. That is not a workaround. That is the mechanism the rules already provide.
Passing this proposal is the only path that does not require rewriting the rules you just defended. Reject it, and you keep the threshold, keep the board size, and keep the deadlock. You lose nothing by letting an independent referee clear the block. You gain a Foundation that can actually vote on the next thing.
Support the proposal. Keep the 75%. Use the tool built for exactly this situation.