Short Summary
This RFC asks the Centrifuge community to consider whether Bhaji Illuminati should continue as CEO of Centrifuge Labs following her authorship, presentation and handling of CP172.
Bhaji is the named author of both CP171 and CP172. These proposals present two fundamentally different commitments concerning CFG:
- CP171 told the community that CFG would remain Centrifuge’s single value-accrual mechanism and expressly stated that there was “no equity business.”
- Less than one year later, CP172 proposed replacing CFG with shares as the single value-accrual mechanism.
As CEO and author of both proposals, Bhaji bears primary leadership responsibility for explaining this reversal, preparing the community for its consequences and protecting the trust upon which CP171 was approved.
This RFC proposes a direct CFG-holder confidence vote. If Bhaji no longer retains the community’s confidence, CFG holders should formally request that the Centrifuge Network Foundation Board remove her as CEO of Centrifuge Labs and initiate a transparent leadership transition.
Why This RFC Focuses on Bhaji
This proposal is intentionally not directed at the entire Centrifuge team.
Employees, developers and other contributors should not automatically be blamed for a strategic decision presented and defended by the CEO. Lawyers and advisers may have assisted with CP172, but advisers do not carry the same leadership mandate or community responsibility as the chief executive.
Bhaji is publicly identified as Centrifuge Labs’ CEO and is the named author of CP172. She was also the named author of CP171, under which CFG holders transferred substantial operational authority to Labs and the Centrifuge Network Foundation.
The community relied on her leadership when it accepted that transfer of authority. It is therefore reasonable for the community to evaluate her leadership when the central commitment supporting that transfer is reversed.
This is not an attempt to involve or accuse every person who may have worked on CP172. It is a question of executive accountability.
The Contradiction Between CP171 and CP172
CP171 was not vague about the future of CFG. It stated:
“There is a single value accrual mechanism: CFG.”
It then emphasized:
“The entire team is aligned around CFG, there is no equity business.”
Those representations were central to the proposal. CFG holders were asked to accept more centralized execution because the Foundation and Labs would use that authority to grow the protocol and maximize CFG value.
CP172 now argues that the token structure itself is a constraint and proposes that shares—not CFG—become the single value-accrual mechanism.
A CEO is permitted to change strategy when circumstances change. But a reversal this fundamental requires:
- A clear explanation of exactly what changed.
- Evidence supporting the new conclusion.
- A comparison of all reasonable alternatives.
- A complete assessment of the consequences for existing holders.
- A decision-grade proposal before the community is asked to vote.
- Direct and sustained communication from the CEO.
In my view, Bhaji did not meet that standard.
Why CP172 Represents a Leadership Failure
My objection is not simply that CP172 explores tokenized equity. Properly structured tokenized equity could potentially benefit Centrifuge and its holders.
The leadership failure is how the proposal was prepared, timed and communicated.
Bhaji introduced a proposal capable of rewriting the entire CFG investment thesis without first providing several of the facts required to evaluate it:
- The percentage of Centrifuge, Inc. that CFG-derived shares would represent.
- A fully diluted capitalization table.
- Complete shareholder rights.
- The final treatment of treasury, unvested and surrendered CFG.
- Country-specific eligibility.
- The protection available to holders who cannot legally convert.
- The complete corporate perimeter and the assets, subsidiaries, intellectual property and revenue streams included.
- The future dilution framework.
- A viable secondary market or exit mechanism.
- A complete explanation of what economic or governance function retained CFG would have.
The subsequent CP172 FAQ confirmed that important financial, constitutional and eligibility information would be provided after the governance vote through a gated process.
It also confirmed that:
- The equity is expected to remain illiquid for the foreseeable future.
- Funding for public CFG liquidity would be wound down after the conversion window.
- No buyback or buy-and-burn mechanism is planned.
- Future equity financing may dilute holders.
- Some holders may be unable to participate because of their jurisdiction or investor status.
- The exact conversion conditions remain unfinished.
This is not a minor drafting deficiency. These are the terms that determine whether CP172 protects or harms existing CFG holders.
A CEO should not ask a community to approve a fundamental change first and provide the information necessary to evaluate that change afterward.
Failure to Anticipate the Consequences
The backlash to CP172 was foreseeable.
Centrifuge spent years asking the crypto community to buy, hold, govern with and place trust in CFG. Holders endured weak markets, inflation, governance changes and token migration because they believed CFG would remain economically aligned with Centrifuge’s success.
Announcing that value accrual may move to private equity—while also announcing that support for CFG liquidity would eventually be withdrawn—was always likely to create severe uncertainty.
Market movements cannot be attributed exclusively to one proposal. Nevertheless, the CEO was responsible for anticipating the market and community consequences of the announcement and preparing an adequate communication and holder-protection plan.
Instead, holders were left asking basic questions while confidence deteriorated.
Bhaji also failed to explain why Centrifuge needed to act through this specific structure at this specific moment. No complete comparison was provided between CP172 and alternatives such as:
- Strengthening CFG utility and value accrual.
- A dual token-and-equity structure.
- Protocol-linked economic mechanisms.
- A staged or reversible transition.
- Waiting for greater regulatory clarity.
- Delaying the vote until the entire disclosure package was available.
A proposal of this significance should have arrived with that work already completed.
The Question of Trust
The most serious consequence of CP172 is not short-term price action. It is the loss of confidence in Centrifuge’s leadership.
CP171 asked the community to trust Bhaji and the centralized operating structure she represented. CP172 then contradicted the central economic commitment made in CP171 without sufficient preparation or explanation.
That creates a legitimate question:
If the community cannot rely on a fundamental commitment made by the CEO for even one year, on what basis should it rely on the commitments being made under CP172?
A company can recover from a failed proposal. Rebuilding trust in leadership is considerably harder.
In my view, Bhaji’s handling of CP172 has demonstrated:
- Poor strategic consistency.
- Insufficient preparation for a foreseeable community reaction.
- Inadequate understanding of crypto-native holders.
- Failure to protect holders facing exclusion or illiquidity.
- Insufficient appreciation of the trust placed in her under CP171.
- A communication approach incompatible with the seriousness of the decision.
These are leadership issues. Responsibility for them should rest with the CEO.
Direct Questions for Bhaji
Before this RFC proceeds to a confidence vote, Bhaji should personally answer the following questions:
- When did she first conclude that CFG should be replaced by equity?
- What changed between her authorship of CP171 and her authorship of CP172?
- Why were the financials, capitalization table, shareholder rights and eligibility framework not prepared before CP172 was published?
- Why should holders vote on the restructuring before receiving those materials?
- What responsibility does she accept for the loss of trust following the proposal?
- What protection does she personally support for holders who are willing but legally unable to convert?
- If CP172 is rejected, will she commit to continuing to build utility, liquidity and value accrual around CFG?
- Why should CFG holders continue to trust her leadership after the contradiction between CP171 and CP172?
- Does she believe the community should have the right to express no confidence in the CEO?
- If CFG holders vote no confidence, will she respect that result and resign?
These questions should be answered directly by Bhaji, not through an anonymous or general team account.
Proposed Confidence Vote
Following a reasonable period for Bhaji to respond, this RFC should proceed to a seven-day Snapshot vote with a minimum quorum of 4,000,000 CFG.
The options should be:
YES — Confidence: Bhaji Illuminati should continue as CEO of Centrifuge Labs.
NO — No Confidence: CFG holders request that Bhaji Illuminati resign or be removed as CEO and that the Centrifuge Network Foundation Board begin a transparent leadership-transition process.
ABSTAIN: Participate without supporting either outcome.
This would initially be a formal governance signal. CFG holders may not currently possess direct legal authority to dismiss the CEO of Centrifuge Labs. That limitation should not prevent the community from clearly expressing whether she retains its confidence.
If the no-confidence option wins, the CNF Board should publicly state within seven days:
- Whether it will honor the community’s decision.
- Whether Bhaji has agreed to resign.
- What formal corporate action is required to remove or replace her.
- Who will serve as interim CEO.
- How the permanent replacement will be selected.
- How CFG holders will be represented during the transition.
- If the result will not be honored, why the Board believes Bhaji should remain CEO despite the loss of community confidence.
What This RFC Does Not Allege
This RFC does not allege that Bhaji committed fraud, acted illegally or designed CP172 for personal enrichment.
Those claims would require evidence that has not been publicly established.
The case for a confidence vote does not depend on proving hidden motives. It rests on documented leadership decisions:
- Bhaji authored CP171.
- Bhaji authored CP172.
- The proposals contain fundamentally different positions regarding CFG.
- CP172 was published without several material terms.
- The later FAQ confirmed that important disclosures would come after the governance vote.
- The process has caused a severe and observable breakdown in community trust.
That record is sufficient to ask whether she should remain CEO.
Requested Community Feedback
I invite CFG holders to comment specifically on:
- Whether Bhaji should remain CEO.
- Whether she should be asked to resign voluntarily.
- What legal or corporate mechanism would allow the CNF Board to replace her.
- Whether an interim CEO should be appointed.
- What qualifications a replacement should possess.
- Whether Bhaji’s response should be published before the confidence vote.
- Whether CP172 should be paused until the leadership question is resolved.
- Whether the Board will commit in advance to respecting a valid no-confidence result.
Conclusion
Bhaji deserves recognition for her contributions to Centrifuge. But leadership cannot be based on past accomplishments alone.
The CEO must be responsible for strategic consistency, preparation, communication and the preservation of stakeholder trust. CP172 represents a failure across each of those responsibilities.
This is not about blaming every Centrifuge employee. It is not about attacking the developers or contributors who continue building the protocol. It is not about assuming that everyone involved in CP172 acted improperly.
It is about holding the person at the top accountable.
Bhaji asked the community to trust her leadership under CP171. Less than one year later, she authored a proposal that reversed its central economic commitment without giving holders the information necessary to evaluate the consequences.
The community must now decide whether that leadership remains acceptable.
Does Bhaji Illuminati still retain the confidence of CFG holders—and if she does not, will Centrifuge respect the community enough to replace her?