The purpose of this referendum is to allow the community to democratically vote specifically on the fact of if it is acceptable to resubmit a proposal that recently failed 

The factors to consider are: 
- The proposal lost by a very small minority, it was very close to 50/50
- The proposal mostly lost because of DV. Of course DV is democratic but no DV is even more democratic, that's probably why W3F is not willing to delegate root track to DV. The most important track of all must be truly democratic 
- The new proposal has significant improvements

The idea is that it is more rational and effective to split the debate into two different referendums, one about the form (if the practice is acceptable) and one about the substance (if it is a good deal) 

Instead of mixing both into the single main referendum it's better to have two referendums, everyone can vote separately on the form (referendum canceler) and on the substance (main referendum) keeping both debates separate 

This is more effective and more democratic

- **Problem Statement:** Community to vote on resubmitting a failed proposal.
- **Significance:** Proposal lost by a small margin, mainly due to DV; new proposal has significant improvements.
- **Proposed Solution:** Split the debate into two referendums: one on the form (if resubmission is acceptable) and one on the substance (if it is a good deal).
- **Expected Outcomes:** Increased rationality and effectiveness, more democratic decision-making process.

#786 Cancel Chainanalysis ref

No Active Proposals