Here is the discussion on discord https://discord.com/channels/745259537707040778/1034074450582315148 for everyone.
domRole icon, Verified — 13:15
This is a malicious proposal as this mints to another account, not the liquidation vault.

The liquidation vault already has the iBTC accounting (see screenshot) or check yourself on polkadot.js.
Image
Franz.G. — 13:19
I saw on chain state, it is the account holding the vDOT from the liquidated vault. What would be the right account then? 
domRole icon, Verified — 13:21
Why would you mint iBTC to the liqudation vault? The liquidation vault already has iBTC associated to it as indicated by the toBeIssued/issued/toBeRedeemed tokens
Franz.G. — 13:23
It just should be an account from protocol. It is the only one I know besides the money market account. It just need to be one only accessible through governance. I also suggest minting into the account from techinal comittee instead. 
domRole icon, Verified — 13:25
No, you are attacking the system by minting tokens out of thin air.
I strongly advise you to vote down this proposal as it will break the system
Franz.G. — 13:28
I can vote down and propose again with an account that does not break it then, just tell me what account would be better.
domRole icon, Verified — 13:28
You cannot mint iBTC to any account without breaking the system. Minting tokens out of thin air will mess up the system. Don't do this 
Franz.G. — 13:30
Why should we let the liquidated vDOT locked for ever, after the protocol is turned down?
domRole icon, Verified — 13:30
The holders of iBTC need to go here and burn their iBTC for the remaining collateral: https://app.interlay.io/btc?tab=burn
Franz.G. — 13:32
I discuss this on the post. https://interlay.subsquare.io/posts/67 There is only about 0.4 in user accounts left. There is 2.2 iBTC to be burned. That is why the proposal is 1.8 iBTC

Lol, everything is an attack. People can vote it down. The information is there. I am trying to bring up something for INTR holders that you let down.

The explanation for the minting was given in the discussion post. Therefore the proposal is not malicious. It is a valid proposal. The iBTC to be minted would be in a system account only accessible via governance. It was even suggested a teams account instead.

The proposal raises valid points and should ultimately be decided by the INTR holders. If there are technical concerns or if another trusted system account should be used instead, the team can address those aspects accordingly. However, simply fast-tracking the proposal down is not the right approach.

The Interlay Liquidation Vault already holds iBTC as indicated by the toBeIssued/issued/toBeRedeemed tokens. Referendum 143 would mint iBTC out of thin air, making it malicious.

Requesting fast-track by TC.

Kill Malicious Proposal 147