Funny that the founder can just submit to vote what is effectively “I need $3M USD and if that runs out additional $1M sums in perpetuity” with zero oversight on how it’s spent, outside of claiming it will be spent on legal costs.
It will be funny if the vote reveals the founder has a majority of the tokens and can vote himself these funds from the DAO's treasury. But if the token is well distributed in the DAO and the community surrounding it, and the proposal passes the vote, I don't really see how it is funny. It is just how governance works in a DAO.
Personally, with the lack of details in this proposal I will vote against it, but at this stage it is most likely the kind of input the proposer is expecting, before the actual vote.
Sometimes when you write these things it's hard to nail down everthing and you can miss a scope creep because you assume honesty on your end for example. I think that it shows a healthy governance process if people can give their interpretation and desires and the proposer updates their proposal accordingly.
The fact he is unwilling to share more data in public about the case is problematic though, I get the issues with talking about an open case. One possibility would be to get the community to vote to elect a comittee of contributors who have demonstrated their care for the DAO to review the documents under NDA, same for reviewing the fees and they would vote on the relevance of such a fund (and its extent) to protect the DAO or not instead.
Presumably there is some audit trail on expenses after the fact?
/s