You are right. We did link that forum topic as an example of of ongoing discussion of the treasury idea, but it was not presented as a concrete idea. The full proposal text is provided below for easy reference. It explicitly states that the temp check “proposal was not intended to represent any concrete ideas.” It also explicitly says it was intended to “gauge interest” and that “specific details” would be “developed in working groups and approved by the NNS at a future date”. There were explicit instructions about what a yes vote means. A yes vote did not mean approval of a treasury, how it would be funded, or how it would be used. A yes vote only meant “you support further exploration of the NNS Treasury idea”.
Start Quote - Proposal 86639 motion text:
This proposal is a Temperature Check of the NNS governing body to better understand if there is general support for the NNS Treasury idea that has been in deliberation in several locations including Twitter and the forum. This proposal is not intended to represent any concrete ideas. It serves to gauge interest from the voters about whether the NNS should independently own and control an ICP treasury. Specific details around purpose, funding mechanisms, and fund distribution would be developed in working groups and approved by the NNS at a future date.
We are asking you to vote to approve this proposal if you support further exploration of the NNS Treasury idea. Vote no if you believe the NNS Treasury idea should not be considered further.
End quote
Just like everyone else, I’m growing tired of repeating myself on these details. I’m not inspired at all about moving forward with the treasury idea.