While I do agree that we are inefficient because of the decentralized nature, and we miss leaders who could put us on the right track, I also find it strange to propose a way to "decide DHF votes" by a small group of people. The entire idea of stake-weighted voting is to give stakeholders the ability to vote, isn't it? :D

Don't get me wrong - I really appreciate the effort to fix what's broken. But in my opinion, this idea fixes nothing. We already had a valueplan which could be considered a test run for that idea. They decided by themselves what to do with the funds. It caused a lot of discord among the community (we all remember the rally car and the emotions it stirred up within the community), but in practice the community could easily out-vote the funding from the DHF. It didn't happen for a long time, and the same would happen with the council IMO.

We've seen numerous proposals that never delivered anything and still got perpetual funding. Not really sure if this is because stakeholders don't care, or they think we need devs/something funded apart from their deliverables, or they're simply incapable of assessing the progress/usefulness of some ideas. But that's the case, and the same people would vote on the council.

The lack of accountability is, in my opinion, the biggest issue her, and I don't really know how to solve it. Even though we introduce things like the proposed council, we won't be able to enforce it. Worst-case scenario for them is that they will lose the votes. And being in such a council brings no benefits so not really sure if that would matter to anyone (of course, the benefit would be to have a strong influence on the future of our change, but hard to imagine it's enough).