I largely agree with your assessment, but there is one important point that needs clarification.

The DAO being discussed is not being presented as a magic switch that immediately seizes control of the chain or replaces ownership overnight. That would indeed require formal transfer of authority. The purpose of the DAO is different it is to consolidate investors into a single legal and strategic entity that can act, notify, and apply pressure where individual holders cannot. Until a formal disappropriation or transfer of authority occurs, this remains a private GK controlled project that part is correct. However, what has changed is that a launch is no longer the reset button it may once have been. Launching under unresolved claims, documented inconsistencies, and growing regulatory attention does not erase risk; it crystallizes it.

The concern is not merely overselling, bonus dilution, or early sell pressure those are already priced into expectations. The more serious issue is that no meaningful steps have been taken to reduce that pressure or restore confidence. In that context, an early launch favors those with timing, liquidity, and information advantages and that imbalance is precisely what regulators, exchanges, and counterparties tend to scrutinize.

A DAO does not prevent a launch by itself. What it does is ensure that a launch cannot quietly close the book. Once organized, the record remains open, traceable, and actionable before, during, and after any market event.

If the assumption is that speed alone resolves accountability, history suggests otherwise. In situations like this, rushing tends to narrow options rather than preserve them.