From my personal point of view, while the COI topic is important and governance already has established COI practices such as disclosures, I find this proposal poorly written in all respects. It expands a kind of non-binding and non-factual oversight to anyone who is a “beneficiary of a proposal,” a term that is not defined. In its basic form, this would pull virtually any user into the framework as “mandatory” and, on top of that, could amount to doxxing. This kind of drafting and language ultimately results in misuse.
The whole point of token governance is to enable participation with tokens one owns, with full sovereignty. We should think carefully before expanding “soft” governance outside of token governance, especially when, as the author states, such soft governance creates a “lack of legitimacy.” A DAO should run on token governance, not on overnight “social contracts” that diminish the legitimacy token governance provides.
I will vote no on this proposal, in light of hoping to see a more reasonable and well-thought-out COI framework that actually makes sense.