The WaterNeuron design follows the same liquid democracy framework that is foundational to all SNS and NNS governance. It sounds like you are arguing against liquid democracy as it is currently defined for ICP. That’s a fair concern and needs to be dealt with at the NNS level, not at the individual SNS level.
If you are not arguing against liquid democracy in general, then the best first place to start on solving the problem of how the WaterNeuron NNS vote is cast is to work on improving the Followee options for WTN neuron owners on the Vote for NNS Proposals topic. The voting power of WTN neurons is well distributed among many neurons with many owners. Yet there are not many options for how they ultimately can cast their votes on the NNS proposal topics, which are 96% of all WTN proposals. People need to be able to easily configure their WTN neurons to follow their own individual choices of NNS neurons via some sort of trustless and individually controllable vote relay feature. I’m not sure why this hasn’t been done already.
At this stage, especially since WaterNeuron controls less than 1% total VP in the NNS, we need to be getting this part of WTN governance right. There is no reason that everyone should be left with the only options of following the WTN team or CodeGov or DFINITY or any other WTN neuron in order to vote reliably on NNS proposals. They should be able to easily configure their WTN neuron to follow their preferred NNS neuron whether it’s a known neuron or their own private neurons. If this were the current configuration, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all because the WaterNeuron vote on NNS proposals would be a direct reflection of the preferences of each individual WTN neuron owner.