Exit Report by outside counsel (subsection (f)(i-ii))

[ErichDylus]

The Exit Report requirement will likely prompt questions as to qualification of "outside counsel" ((f)(1)(i)), perhaps including any disclosure thereof by the Report author of present/conflicting incentives, for example as a tokenholder or DAO member of the underlying network. Further, given the ramifications and publicity/reputation stake of such a Report, there may be an adverse selection effect on persons/firms willing to provide such a Report. Codification of such an outside counsel report or memo (h/t to Collins Belton) seems quite unique if not unprecedented.

[lex-node]

suggestion-->backstop legal Report with public representations from Initial Development Team as to the underlying facts

[paulbarclay]

The rule is written in such a way as to not require the Initial Development Team to write the exit report. That's a noble decentralization goal (if it's really decentralized, the Initial Development Team no longer has authority). But, I don't think it helps. I'd agree with both the representations from the Initial Development Team, and having the IDT be the ones submitting the report (there has to be an Initial Development Team at all times until the exit happens; the exit is what stops those members from being the IDT)