I’m sharing my opinion on this proposal a bit late because I wanted to see how things would evolve before weighing in. Personally, I see this proposal as a typical example of why governance reform is necessary. Even though I’m in favor of acquiring Stargaze, I believe the negotiation of terms shouldn’t be happening in this forum, because neither I nor most stakers and validators have the expertise to properly assess an acquisition.
Unfortunately, the current governance system forced Shane to publish this buyout proposal directly on the forum, leaving it open to commentary from people who, like myself, are not qualified to speak on M&A numbers. In my view, Shane should have been directed to an elected assembly empowered to discuss acquisitions alongside a professional in mergers and acquisitions, as well as Hub representatives. Together, they could have refined the numbers based on feedback from both parties Stargaze and the Hub before submitting the proposal for a final governance vote.
While I believe most people here support acquiring Stargaze, the terms are currently being renegotiated behind the scenes between Shane and Magmar before being resubmitted. I hope that in the future, it won’t be the ICL or Magmar to negotiate such deals, but rather to elected representatives with a clear mandate to do so democratically and with the ability to consult neutral professionals for complex matters like this. Of course, any final “yes” or “no” on such proposals should still be subject to governance voting.
Lastly, I want to emphasize how much I value the Stargaze project and fully support its acquisition even though I’m not satisfied with the current terms. I genuinely hope a revised agreement can be reached so I can cast a confident yes vote on this proposal!