Hey Yorick. Thanks, the message looks OK from NOM side.
Just a quick note from my side re: timing of the administrative changes discussed here in relation to the acquisition and “continuance” discussion + possible vote in the other thread here. The way I see it, name and address changes are things that NOs could ostensibly do on their own without requiring a snapshot => on-chain vote flow, were the appropriate governance rails for such actions set up via Easy Track, just like key limit increases. Since these rails currently aren’t set up (and IIRC there was no specific reason they weren’t apart from that they happen so rarely as to necessitate a full ET-based ability to do so), I think an on-chain vote to make the name and address changes to effectively reflect the reality of the acquisition isn’t something that should affect or prejudice a vote by tokenholders on whether Galaxy (ex CMF) should continue or not.
Thus, I personally don’t see a reason not to proceed with bundling the requested updates with the next on-chain vote, even if the possible Snapshot for for continuation of participation by Galaxy may happen a bit later due to the governance schedule.