The little that I have read about the beginnings of Bitcoin, it was Satoshi who presented the route, and along the way he found some allies who decided to delegate part of the reins of what we now know as the Genesis currency.

Based on that I would like to contribute, that it is possible that @proofofbrainio already has some plans up its sleeve.

and in this case acting desperately proposing a governance to carry out something, outside of that possible plan, leaves more an impression of own benefit to a collective good.

If we consider that the community is relatively young, it may be good to let some time go before choosing a team. And I'm going to leave you an example of this.

When you decide to share with a person with whom you feel a certain attraction, it does not cross your mind to marry her, even as much as you like it, I do not think that in 4 months you will want to make that decision.

First you know her, you look at her virtues and defects (which you never get to know 100%) after a prudent time has passed, you decide to make a decision that is much more serious like this.

It could have been any example but I only came up with this one at the time, surely there are more examples that manage to fit this.

Now comes the question:
If you received little interaction in what you proposed, could it be taken as a negative answer?

Perhaps the community for now does not think that is convenient, and only some are interested in looking for something beyond a collective interest ...