First, welcome @TheADAstandard and thank you for the great question. I’m a Cardano newbie (stake key 11mo old) but I will attempt share the historical background and problem statement.
Cardano was founded with both a centralized governance and centralized federated network with the hope that both would be decentralized to the community according to the 5 age/era roadmap. Centralized governance consisted of 3 genesis organizations (IOG, CF, Emurgo) with 7 genesis keys controlling treasury spending and the blockchain network parameters (IOG 3-keys, CF 2-keys, Emurgo 2-keys with a 5/7 majority).
The original centralized governance has already failed because CF had structural problems and historically did not use its keys (until Vasil HF), Emurgo disappeared and delegated its 2 genesis keys to IOG, and IOG was delayed covering a much larger responsibility scope. There were no checks and balances. Nobody could find CF or Emurgo in default and enforce a penalty or corrective action. We have been trusting 1 organization: IOG. IMHO Charles is trustworthy and has my trust, however with the current problems in the crypto currency industry trusting 1 company, 1 leader, 1 person is not a philosophically acceptable model. The Age of Voltaire is the era of transforming centralized governance into decentralized governance, retiring the centralized genesis key hierarchy and transferring treasury spending powers and network parameter control to the community.
The Shelley era transformed the centralized federated network into a decentralized network. The goal was to centralize to k=500 pools with an MAV of about 250. This failed because the incentives were decided by a ‘trusted’ small centralized groupthink of academics that made mistakes. Charles never whiteboarded the reward equation chart for community debate. The network decentralization is currently k~40 MAV=21. CIP-50 is the effort to correct this centralized groupthink RSS paper failure the Cardano way: with a community effort to research then publish an RSS-revision-2 paper for community consideration.
The concept of a MBO embodies the hopes for future decentralized Cardano governance on-chain and off-chain architecture. If the governance architecture does not involve community ideas, community input, and community audit it is my fear that governance will fail and become more centralized than the network MAV, an oligarchy/plutocracy with at best a MAV 21/40 majority. It is my fear that a MBO with a centralized hierarchical model (with a founder/king/monarch, director(s), super delegate(s), board member(s) ) could fail just like CF and Emurgo already historically failed. It is essential that the architecture and bylaws of MBO governance be public, debated, and established with a proper community convention / ratification process. The CIP process is the de-facto way of Cardano Improvement Proposals involving the community.
This thread is the beginning of draft thoughts, debates, and ideas which may be included in a future CIP, bylaws, and ratification convention.