I strongly suggest splitting this into two separate proposals:
- OP buyback mechanism
- Foundation discretionary management of the ETH treasury
These are fundamentally different policy decisions and deserve independent discussion, signaling, and voting.
The buyback proposal materially changes OP’s economic narrative and will naturally bias delegate sentiment. The treasury management proposal, on the other hand, is about governance structure, delegation of authority, and accountability over ETH that, frankly, has been poorly utilized since inception.
Bundling them together creates a risk where:
Delegates support the proposal primarily due to expected OP price appreciation from buybacks.
As a consequence, the Foundation is granted significantly expanded discretionary power without that authority being evaluated on its own merits.
Even if one agrees with improving treasury management, that conversation should happen without the emotional or speculative pressure of a buyback narrative attached.
Please separate these proposals so the Collective can:
- Debate buybacks on their own economic and philosophical merits.
- Independently evaluate whether, how, and under what constraints discretionary ETH management should be expanded.
This would lead to a clearer mandate, better governance hygiene, and more credible outcomes for both decisions.