This is a valid point, but a longer discussion for sure. When @nodeE brought this point up two days ago, we discussed it quite a bit. It just seems to be the case that there are different ideas about how SafeDAO’s governance should be designed. Although I think we all agree that SafeDAO’s governance is early, immature and can be improved.
When you say that not being able to buy voting power is a problem, I’m not sure if everyone would agree. It’s for a reason that ‘soulbound tokens’ have become quite popular recently when the default state is that the richest and most liquid individual can buy the most voting power. This is also extremely contradictive to the idea of one-person, one-vote which you have argued for as well before.
At the end of the day, I’m not sure that the wider community (not only those actively commenting here) would want to get rid of the current system completely. Guardians earned their status based on valuable contributions to the Safe ecosystem. Instead of getting rid of it, we may be better advised to keep and fundamentally improve it?
There are also lots of other exciting, innovative experiments happening around DAO governance, such as:
Now that SEP-2 is off the table for now is a good time to discuss these and work towards a governance framework for SafeDAO that is state of the art.
BTW: If you want to tag someone, you can do so by “@” their name, like @Bruce. Linking their profile page like this, Profile - Bruce - Safe Community Forum, won’t notify them.