I find your attitude most refreshing.
I suppose that the final point here is that we don't actually have a governance mechanism that can make those changes in a legitimate way.
What changes are those?
The real way to make those changes is to create a fork of blurt, or to do what blurt did to start, which is a snapshot and then an airdrop.
Can you explain to me as a non-tech what is meant by snapshot and airdrop?
Megadrive was concerned about the chain being forced somehow to empty the foundation fund.
I think this concern was totally invalid.
In cosmos, it is possible (example Juno) to use governance to affect individual accounts. That's not possible on blurt.
Thank you.
You mean there was fear that someone could influence the witnesses to write code which would allow them to freeze someones account?
I think it's imaginable and therefor it's probably possible. But that would require a lot of criminal energy. And people hate being criminals from my point of view.
It is totally totally possible to either nuke or freeze accounts and to move funds arbitrarily between accounts. The key protection against this is the witnesses themselves. That's why it's really important that you choose good witnesses because those witnesses protect you against more or less endless and myriad threats.