You are asking the Terra community to rely on another future commitment while refusing to identify what authorized your departure from previous commitments

Again, your [2024 TLA proposal](https://github.com/phoenix-directive/docs/blob/7cebbd26048f0e1568a2aed55177090b90788d8b/common_backup/2024-08-12_24385_launching-terra-liquidity-alliance.md#L168-L169) specified administration transfer after 1 month and ownership transfer after 3 months

Two years later, your [explanation](https://forum.phoenix.money/t/phoenix-foundation-appointment-of-an-emergency-supervisor/47/55) is that you personally considered the board unsuitable

**Who authorized you to replaced the published handover terms with your own personal opinions?**

**Name the decision, the approving authority and the date it happened**

This, among many other documented issues, are all unanswered and have been repeatedly deflected by you

Your latest proposal repeats the exact same dependency: remove an existing safeguard now, then rely on your future conduct during a supposedly "temporary" arrangement. The exact same sequence that you did not honor previously

A restriction on how you promise to vote (with a proven track record of not keeping your word) is not the same as a restriction on what you can authorize

A promise about how you will exercise power is not a limit on the power itself

Onchain governance exists specifically to prevent the possibility for misuse of power, before it happens

Meanwhile, it has been recorded that you have suspended several critics for "dissent" on an open governance forum

**Governance loses all credibility the moment disagreement is censored at the same time proponents seek to push through highly contested props. Open discussion is a community good, in the Terra community's best interests**

Censorship in the context of governance capture is significantly worse

You obviously cannot ask for "scrutiny" while excluding those who challenge your proposal and refusing to answer any direct questions or take any direct accountability for unfulfilled commitments

**Strong protections must be put into a proposal before asking for more power:**

* **An approved transition that prevents you and MB becoming sufficient authority alone**
* **Independently assessed replacement candidates, with financial/personal relationships disclosed**
* **Completion of multi-year outstanding technical handovers**
* **Moderation independent of everyone involved in these conflicts**

**It should go without saying: another future promise does not resolve unfulfilled commitments**

**Produce the exact authorization you had to capture administration / ownership rights long term, or complete the full handover now**

**Put new safeguards in new proposals before asking the Terra community to surrender existing ones**