I support the transparency updates but I would suggest conflicted voters cast an ABSTAIN vote instead of not voting at all.
Silence is ambiguous. It creates uncertainty about whether a delegate is actually ethically ‘compliant’, negligent, or simply absent.
Voting ABSTAIN puts clear intent onchain: it shows the delegate is active, aware of the conflict, and deliberately choosing not to influence the outcome, making compliance verifiable.
And could even comment on the vote.
This approach is consistent with practices in other DAOs. For example in Arbitrum, the Code of Conduct requires mandatory COI disclosure but does not forbid voting or require non-participation, allowing delegates to remain active while managing conflicts transparently.
Similar in Uniswap, the Delegate Code of Conduct explicitly advises delegates to abstain when they cannot fully evaluate a proposal, and recognizes disclosure plus abstention as an appropriate response in cases of conflict or uncertainty.