I see your point with the removing of assets maybe a board that is independent and does a complete audit and makes sure every transaction is transparent and in the best interest of hive stake holders with them having a blocking authority over DHF funds for a certain period of time to allow for the blocking or challenge of items by having accounts that are small sign up for a proxy vote contract that would auto delegate all hive owned to the board account on demand and be able to wield all the power of the small accounts at once to vote to block certain things or be able to ensure compliance with rules that are consistent for all members. Maybe instead of taking assets if the ownership could not be over come then voting shares are limited in certain situations where actions of the larger players collusion is in question and how that collusion negatively impacts HIVE and if found that the actions are not consistent with a fiduciary relationship then they would also in this case as part of the them holding on to leadership positions need to put up significant collateral that can be slashed and any account that is known to be associated with the account under investigation would not be allowed to vote on the slashing penalty. Losing money if they act in a way that would not be necessarily in the interest of all members should not be tolerated and if they can lose money a good chunk then they wont do it likely.