Transparency is good, I don't mind seeing Dan spending more time on the board and letting others do more coding, than feeling being left in the dark.
That being said, my biggest concern is how much it really worth for a so-called Social Consensuses (a.k.a Social Contract). Setting aside the arguments whether any promise has been broken between late November and today, it's clear the motivation for the change was for Invictus to get more funding to get projects done.
From an investor point of view thought, this represents a change from a very generous offer to a not so great offer. I can understand there might be some flaws in the original plan -- if the company don't have enough funding to get things done, everybody lose.
However, the investment community can only tolerate one or maybe two changes of course, beyond that, most investors' confidence will be gone except the most gullible. A company can make and learn from many mistakes on the technology side, but when it comes to issues with the implication of redistributing profit among community groups, tread with extreme caution.
Even with all the rules and regulations put in place by the governments, many management teams of public traded companies can find ways to dilute shares, enrich themselves and make their companies "lifestyle companies". With DAC model, the constraint is even weaker, greed and other human natures make investors in an even more vulnerable situation.
Trust and transparency, the lifeblood of successful DACs.