This is truly a horrible situation and I’m really sorry that this happened to you. I also want to say that if the same thing had happened to me, I’d probably be in these forums doing exactly what you’re doing now. Many of us probably would, and I think that anyone who doesn’t support this should at least acknowledge that.
That being said, there are no circumstances in which the Osmosis validators should make state changes to the chain to arbitrate offchain disputes like who is the owner of a particular set of funds. Are validators prepared to accept any civil / criminal liability on the DAO’s behalf in the event that the true ownership of these funds isn’t as it’s been described here?
More importantly, to @Kych 's point, are the validators prepared to arbitrate every case of lost funds moving forward, and upgrade the chain to move private user funds around each time? I understand that in this singular case the affected user happens to be someone whose name is familiar on twitter, but as @0xPhilipp says quite well:
To the point of precedent, Osmosis has already decided a similar issue, and many of the points made in that forum are relevant here. Dropping this here for reference:
Ryan, I’m very sorry that this happened to you. As I said before, I’d probably make this same request if it was me. But in the interest of the chain as a whole, I’d hope the validators would have the foresight and prudence to vote no for any proposal I were to put up if that were to happen.