Both referenda have settled. The burn wish passed and the settlement rule did not.
W3F explained their votes. Bill Laboon posted the reasons on X, and the referendum page carries a longer comment from him: “While W3F sees the value of DOT being used for JAM, and find that the overall outline of this Referendum generally acceptable, we believe that it is too early for the specifics outlined here. Among other things, we would not like to see other mechanisms for distributing JAMKB precluded at this stage. Therefore, W3F will be voting NAY on this Referendum.”
The fair part: the text was already mechanism-agnostic. It named leases, rentals, loans, deposits, and sales as forms the rule would cover, and picked none. What it did fix was the settlement unit, before the mechanism itself exists. W3F’s point is that this choice should come out of that design process. On reflection I think they are right about that.
Whether the DAO should lease the footprint it holds, or ever sell any of it, was never on the ballot. Neither were the guarantees a tenant gets. Jonas Gehrlein pulled his decaying-deposit proposal in August and named the reasons; that is exactly the design space W3F wants kept open. If a revised wish ever goes to the chain, it gets drafted here first, in the open, with the mechanism left to the process.
@BizaRre co-sponsored the filed version and sharpened it in review. @Kingston007 co-sponsored the earlier July text; the final corrections came after his last pass. And @thewhiterabbitM gave this thread its start in the first place. That part of the record stands regardless of the tally.