I agree that the intent behind the proposal is reasonable, but any approach like this creates more problems than it solves. Weakening on-chain enforcement undermines the core value of blockchain governance and replaces clear rules with subjective judgment.
I also agree that DAOs are not neutral and are influenced by large holders. This issue exists as a design flaw of most DAOs. But treating on-chain voting as non-canonical and open to disputes only makes the situation worse by breaking the core principles of blockchain decision-making. It also introduces significant bureaucracy and operational friction around any controversial vote
Transparency is better than pretending otherwise. If governance needs improvement, it should focus on making discussions and influence more transparent, especially at the forum level where decisions are shaped. Addressing bots and sybil accounts would be more constructive than reducing the guarantees provided by on-chain voting