I appreciate and support any community initiative, so thanks for posting. I recommend making a few changes that I think will help make this more convincing and easier to sell to PERP holders.
First, I would reference the original gov post so people know what the options you are mentioning are.
Second, “treasury income” is not clear–I would call this treasury fee income. Also, “small fraction (1.75%~2.5%) of the trading fee income” may not correspond to “17.5% treasury income” etc. Treasury fee income is received as overflow from the insurance fund, so it could be as much as 10% of fees (the other 10% goes to PERP stakers), or it could be zero. The overflow threshold is related to how much open interest is on the protocol, so if OI is growing fast, overflow could be 0. So it would probably be easier to say, a certain % of treasury fee income, or % of monthly treasury fee income. You can also refer to this post Proposal: Fee Distribution
This is a misleading statement.
Option 4 applied the theory of how an AMM works, but the outcome of Option 4 is virtually impossible in practice since it required each trader to unwind exactly 1% and to do so in strict sequence of small to large.
“the team decided to have a vote instead” this is entirely false: Option 4 was part of the vote itself, and a vote was and is the standard practice and method by which all major decisions are made, assuming they are not either a critical emergency or involving possible use of asymmetric information for financial gain.
Option D: Do nothing and suffer reputation damage and legal consequences that serve as a hindrance to the full 20X recovery of PERP’s price.
I suggest simply saying “Do nothing”. Adding the stuff at the end is sensationalist and speculative.