Thanks for the detailed response, @SwaptoX. We verified the claims about KyberSwap and OpenOcean executor contracts, and they check out. The industry practice argument is fair, and the commitment to open-source Entered before enabling fees is a reasonable compromise.
On the audit: we want to flag something for the broader group. The original $15K proposal included no audit scope or budget. The framing now is that adding an audit “would increase both timeline and cost,” but for infrastructure that routes token transfers through an unverified closed-source contract, an audit is not optional. @Curia raised the audit question early in this thread, and @Axia and @ChronoTrigger both flagged related concerns around verifiability and risk. We think this deserves a broader discussion: should audits be a standard milestone requirement for grants involving smart contract infrastructure, a shared ecosystem resource, or handled some other way?
More broadly, several commitments here, open-sourcing Entered, deploying the timelock, locking fees until June 2027, take effect after grant completion. We think key items like the timelock and Entered open-sourcing should be tied to milestone approval rather than left as future promises with no enforcement mechanism.