Interesting… this seems like a version of the same problem that you see in all futarchy, which is that if some vote has a too-close-to-zero chance of passing, there’s no incentive to commit capital to voting against it, and so in equilibrium it has to succeed at least some of the time.
Possible mitigations include:
- Adding a “yes bias”: making the requirement that no votes have to provide a buy order weaker, or conditional on there being a sufficient number of yes votes
- Requiring a proposal to have a fee equal to 1% of the funds distributed, so only proposals that have at least some minimum probability of success actually get proposed
- Using a prediction market to filter proposals: anyone can make a bet that the proposal will fail with >95% probability, and bringing the proposal to a vote requires someone making counter-bets against all open bets