I am sorry but I think you have not read my post. We both agree on having on-chain governance. But … only if it make sense.
We are strong advocates of onchain governance where the token holders control the underlying protocol.
Well … in Optimism they don’t 
In addition, onchain votes are open to all. Whereas offchain voting solutions exclude folks who interact with governance in atypical ways and leave delegates susceptible to integration bugs.
Agora also has bugs. I don’t see this as an argument. Just as an example, the deadline for current round of votes shows to end in 4 days while it ends today.
As for the current proposals, if the token holders controlled the OP treasury, an onchain vote would have been necessary to effect the transfer of OP
Would have been. But it’s not yet. So why force participants in governance to spend money for no reason? It’s simply useless and not inclusive.
We just voted for an intent of inclusive governance. Forcing users to pay $1.3 per vote means only users in rich countries can participate freely.
P.S.: I think we want the same thing. I just disagree in the timing of the change, and believe that especially with the gas prices we have right now we are hurting inclusivity in the governance process.