I would NEVER decentralize an asset holding system with an SNS. I was a horrible idea from the jump. It is inherently fragile until you reach significant scale. Any asset is at risk to an entity with more assets than 50% of the market cap that is paying attention.
The system should have figured out how to leverage the governance innate to the NNS as that was at least securing theoretical billions. I guess they attempted that with gating, but as soon as a dao had its own token it becomes a target that must be robust across all future universes. The last five years have borne that out. How many weren’t taken over? How many of the ones that weren’t were worth the trouble?
We did ICRC-137 (https://forum.dfinity.org/t/anti-dao-pre-dao-daoless-icrc-137-veto-based-governance/58696) the way we did in part because it puts vetos at the NNS level and the NNS has secured billions for over half a decade(probably because Dfinity holds defacto majority but that is a different conversation). Now, people still have to care and it increases the trust people have to give developers, but it at least give some mechanism for deniability of coercion(a gunman can’t show up at your door and demand change) but devs still can lead and direct and upgrade without too much of a burden, it forces good, open source transparency while letting apps get to a state where they are not giving away too much too early and where they might have a chance to survive(although I’d argue a bicameral system of some kind that still inherits the nns’ (or some bigger fish’s) security would be preferable.
Here is a simple lemma: how much do you think your simple token voting based platform is worth vs what value do you think will be held in the platform? If the value ever exceeds the worth, you are dead. Can you create systems where the held assets also increase security? Yes. Have you created those and thought deeply about them? No? You are dead, or will be with any success.