If I was a Dash Trust Protector, the first thing I'd do is set up a due-diligence exercise to establish what the economics of Dash are and exactly how it justifies (in hard accounting terms) deviating from its cloned inheritance. Nobody in this community can even do double entry bookkeeping, let alone apply it to such apparently exotic concepts as proof of work, proof of stake, reward flows and investment capital flows.

This would be ongoing and have two parallel aspects: analytics and debate. As far as analytics go, it's not that difficult for example to employ an experienced modeller to test out theories such as the one I promote continuously whereby our masternode rewards are super-optimal and undermine the capital gain element of growth. Then we'd at least have a control reference with which to test any theories and proposals coming out of DCG.

I'd require an economic model that was formally presented that investors could understand and measure progress by.

Then I'd establish some kind of semi-formalised protocol for DAO contractors by which their progress and accountability could be better measured by investors, along the lines of what's described here.

Then I'd re-instate @taoOfSatoshi as moderator of some kind of forum where all views are tolerated, broad umbrella, aimed at non-holders at least as much as the tribalistic priorities of a few hardened insiders.

I wouldn't be concerning myself too much with personal behaviours, who said what about who's wife/girlfriend, people throwing their toys out of prams, rage quits and huffs. That stuff is the domain of golf club politics and tends to be a signal that the priorities I outlined above have been forgotten and neglected.