This @ethos_network slash proposal is part of an outrageous smear campaign from @whosknave and @Unchained_pod. I am genuinely shocked that someone who I respected (@lex_node) has allowed himself not only to be quoted in the original hit piece with speculative "opinion" on the intention of the parties to the agreement and the meaning and operation of certain clauses in the agreements but has also consistently doubled down in his x comments and again in his comments on this proposal. As one example, you can see in this comment that there is a deliberate misquoting of @SmokeyTheBera's public response as "protection for failure to TGE or FAILURE TO LIST" (vs "failed to TGE and get listed") - that misquoting can only be a disingenuous and deliberate reframing to further an agenda. Structuring of commercial agreements is complicated. The parties (in this case @berachain and BH/Nova) are often subject to agreements which either implicitly (for commercial or other reasons) or explicitly prevent them from publicly defending themselves. As a lawyer, @lex_node should (and presumably does) know that forming an opinion on the operation of a complicated commercial structuring agreement based on documents without knowing whether those documents are accurate, genuine, complete, in context, or even current, would be negligent and irresponsible. I genuinely cannot express how shocked and appalled I am.

c.f. @whosknave @laurashin @SmokeyTheBera @ImmutableLawyer @Unchained_pod

Unfortunately I can't comment on the proposal itself because my reputation isn't high enough, otherwise I would write up a longer and more detailed response. If anyone wants to post it on my behalf on the proposal DM me and I'll get to work compiling my thoughts.