So CodeGov rejected it because it would imply guilt in NPs. Dfinity made the proposal, which implied there may be something wrong.
You just implied I may steal people’s money from Neutrinite DEX accounts, based on voting on a what everyone will see as a ‘joke’ motion proposal, which you admit may be just following a neuron (which it is). And this started the whole micro conversation between you and me. Let’s stop implying things? I am not trying to pick a fight. As you can see, all my posts on the subject aren’t targeting anyone in particular, but instead focusing on understanding the situation and improving the IC. Let’s assume everyone is a good actor. It still doesn’t prove IC node ownership is decentralized and the network is secure. Let’s focus on that or just do whatever we can to move to secure enclave nodes faster. By that I mean a system where physical access to the node has zero control over it and the IC subnets. Only the NNS can change the code of these nodes thought proposals and decide what memory read access admins have. Would CodeGov accept that?