I’ll try de-escalating the situation and returning the conversation back to the original topic
From what I’ve understood the proposal is talking about having a committee consisting of 2 parts: a DAO group with responsibilities a bit similar to AADAO or Neutron Grant Foundation and a selected subset of validators that are also a part of the “resurrection” through active governance participation.
For the vision to work the committee must get a boost in the voting power. This is a specific nature of the proposal and I think it’s a bit unfair to be addressing this as bribery this aggressively. If you use the same logic, you can also throw this one under the same bus.
At the moment the governance is undergoing through a serious participation problem. Most of the validators aren’t active and almost every single proposal is struggling to reach the quorum. Talking about usurpation is a bit dramatic with the current status quo in my opinion
It’s probably for the best to take the conversation about delegation program to another topic to keep this digestible but I think there was a bit of overreaction due to misunderstanding + conclusions being made in haste. The members of the DAO group haven’t been discussed yet but it’s already assumed the proposal is about personal benefits
Moreover, I think there is some vision overlap between @RoboMcGobo and @Antropocosmist. I struggle to see how the mechanism for gaining voting power and the mentioned Yield generation aren’t the same thing (staking CP funds)
As for the list of the validators my assumption is that there was at least partial agreement / approval of the proposed ideas but there was a misalignment / misunderstanding about the final look of the proposal