sure. quite simply really. i wouldn’t have acted in a way that was counter to what i would later say my intentions were.
claim to be for transparency - yet have secret meetings.
claim to be for accountability - yet not be able to make a case for your integrity.
claim to be for inclusion - yet excluded the community in a matter so integral.
whilst i appreciate your attempt to explain your thought process, it relies heavily on an assumption which is largely baseless(i expand on this further on). beside your approach to have it excluding the community ultimately not resulting in the desired result - the reasons before didn’t justify, and the result after even more so just added/add to that very case.
i for one (as well as the few others who’ve come forth in light of all that’s transpired) would have loved to be part of that conversation.
case in point look at the points others and i made on this thread:
not to mention from a numbers game/probability standpoint, the desired result stood a better chance in it being an open public conversation than a private closed one.
the opposite, which you claim, would be true if majority of the community on the forum were against the project - which just isn’t the case. (as is evidenced by majority of threads and posts within them). at best, any opposition would have been from speculators, who are few and far between - especially in cardano comparative to other projects within the space. even they wouldn’t be bothered to engage on a thread of such nature let alone actively oppose it as it does nothing to move the needle either way for what they’re interested in - the short term gains in monetary value.
as you’ve pointed out in your screenshot, you had little intention in staying in the lounge and that you knew that this needs to be a wider community conversation…