The recent rejection of the referendum https://interlay.subsquare.io/democracy/referenda/147 by the team using the 80M INTR controlled through the Interlay Foundation raises important governance concerns that should not simply disappear now that the vote is over.

At its core, the goal of the proposal was straightforward: INTR holders — as the economic stakeholders and rightful owners of the protocol — should have a fair mechanism to decide how protocol-controlled assets are handled before the chain eventually stops producing blocks.

Whether one agreed or disagreed with every detail of the referendum, the broader objective remains legitimate and unresolved.

There were certainly aspects of the proposal that could have been refined. Technical concerns, execution risks, or the use of another trusted system account could all have been discussed constructively through governance. That is exactly what decentralized governance is supposed to achieve.

Instead, the referendum was effectively shut down through foundation-controlled voting power. That creates a serious concern about the practical limits of decentralization within the protocol.

Even more concerning, I was banned from Discord simply for defending the idea that the referendum should be decided openly by governance participants rather than politically rejected in advance. People are free to disagree with proposals. But suppressing discussion around decentralized governance sends the wrong message.

At the same time, no meaningful alternative was presented by the team.

If this referendum was flawed, then what is the official plan?

1. What happens to protocol-controlled assets?
2. What is the roadmap for winding down the protocol?
3. How long will core time continue to be renewed?
4. What happens to stranded reserves and liquidation vault assets if the chain eventually stops?
5. What mechanism will allow INTR holders to participate in these decisions?

These questions remain unanswered.

The reality is simple: once block production stops, governance stops. Assets remaining inside inaccessible pallets or protocol accounts may effectively become frozen forever. That is why this discussion matters now, not later.

The underlying principle also remains unchanged: protocol-controlled assets should not simply disappear or remain indefinitely stranded while the community that funded, supported, and governed the protocol receives no transparent resolution process.

The discussion should therefore continue — openly and transparently — with the goal of finding a governance-based solution that respects both decentralization and the interests of INTR holders before any irreversible shutdown scenario occurs.