The NP independence initiatives currently taking place and being planned are down to community members exhibiting the sort of critical thinking and due diligence that you’re disparaging. ‘Progress in the conversation’ is happening in spite of dismissive input, not because of it. Similarly, describing active governance participation which challenges the status quo as vigilantism is utterly ridiculous in the context of web 3.
On another note:
- Have you read FATF documentation and guidance. Do you understand it?
- You must be aware that a plan should be in place to account for the fact that audits represent a snapshot in time. Periodic re-evaluation is known to be needed and the details around that need sorting out. I’d like to know what the plan is.
- Misrepresentation and deliberate concealment are indicators of higher risk. FATF does not advocate for a blanket one size fits all approach. Measurably higher risk affects decisions such as the sensible frequency for re-evaluation, as well as the ownership percentages that may be deemed to be significant.
- 25% is quite literally the least ‘safe’ percentage that can be applied while still fitting within the general framework (not the domain-specific framework that should be devised based on the context). More info.
- You should also be aware that temporary window-dressing is perfectly possible and achievable. I’d like to see more discussion about how this is being accounted for in the approach that DFINITY is applying to organising these audits. I encourage you to take an interest in this too.