This is a real difficult political discussion. I somehow doubt it will be that easy for people to change their minds on what system is right for the job. Both democracy and meritocracy have their pros and cons and they are both natural. When you have a group of people that need to make a decision, you naturally care about the ones that contributed the most, but again majority is the ones that are always in charge, so if they really don’t like it, they will just take it over themselves and make their own choice.
It is a difficult discussion, but we should of course have it.
For one UAHF are always possible in a decentralized system, including in Bisq. If users really don’t like how it is going, they can always fork their own Bisq. So we always naturally have democracy, as long as it is all open source and decentralized. But also we have meritocracy that works if the users don’t disagree and fork off, so it makes sense for the ones involved in the voting to not go against users too much and since they did contribute in the first place, then it isn’t that bad that they seek profit.
However, it is still more complicated then that, it always is. It is a possibility that DAO holders make a mistake and do something that isn’t in the users interest or therefor their interest, as it isn’t just about incentives when you look for vulnerabilities in a voting system, but also it’s tolerance of mistakes, or as we would call it in programing, bugs. For the sake of stability, we should think about what could make someone take over the DAO or influence it in a way that no one wins. Whenever you have power, you have responsibility as well, so DAO holders need to be very careful and educated on how their actions influence the DAO.
There is no simple programming solution for it, we need a good community that will keep DAO holders informed and let them discuss. We can’t hope that it will be perfect, but we need to take it seriously and do our real best, it is an important thing that we could be doing here.