You reply confirms the central problem:
You believe your own personal judgment entitles you to withhold powers after publicly committing to transfer them
Your own TLA proposal specified transfer of administration after one month and transfer of contract ownership after three months
It contained no condition requiring the board to retain your confidence
Identify the decision authorizing departure from these terms:
-
who approved it?
-
under what authority?
-
when?
Your reply supplies a retrospective excuse for withholding control, 2 years after the fact. But it supplies no authorization and no transparent declaration at the time
You exercised these powers frequently. The record includes changing the registry’s fee recipient from Stewardship to ERIS and,separately, moving Treasury migration administration between ERIS wallets
Collective oversight is non-existent if the person being overseen is misrepresenting control handovers and taking personal decisions about who receives control
Your denial of voting coordination also deflects from the points raised
A272 expliclty proposed converting the board to a 2 of 3. You and MB supported it. It’s effect would be to make 2 approvals sufficient, despite your ongoing financial relationship (which is proven onchain), without requiring anyone outside your pairing to consent
Even in a situation where there is not coordination, there is no safeguard here against misuse
The suggestion is simple: will you make it a binding condition that any removal that does occur is only done so with an approved arrangement preventing you and MB becoming sufficient authority alone
I support investigation of every director. This involves payments, financial non-disclosure, performance, conflicts, misrepresentations, withheld control, security decisions, retained powers and more. This includes you
Demands for identity and appeals to loyalty have nothing to do with the essential facts: your published commitments, your documented financial relationships and payments, their related financial non-disclosures, nor the effect of A272
You are asking the community to blindly trust a future process that could remove a director, wile offering no protection against you and MB
All while overtly defending your own decision to withhold admin/ownership rights despite your public commitments, without identifying any approval or disclosure changing those commitments
Put your own conduct within the same explicit review mandate
Validators should fully reject this package before sufficient safeguards are in place
You never had the right to make handovers conditional on your own approval of the people who were elected to oversee you
The accountability relationship is reversed here: the person retaining power cannot reserve the right to decide when oversight is acceptable