Thank you so much, @ChronoTrigger , while we clearly have different perspectives on the weight of coordination costs versus builder incentives , we really appreciate the rigor of this debate. It’s healthy discourse for a balanced conversation, and we recognize that we “agree to disagree”, which is totally fine.
To wrap up our position for the community:
-
We agree that security is paramount. However, our focus still remains on the conversion funnel. A 25 day residency is a significant investment; if the natural next step is simply more grants, we remain concerned about the long-term ROI of this specific pipeline compared to other high-intent builder programs.
-
We don’t advocate for governance paralysis, not at all! We simply believe that with these recent multiple event grants requests, demonstrates the need for having an understanding from Labs on their priority mandate, which allows the DAO to determine our own strategic goals. If we don’t know where or what the goal posts are, then we continue to vote on grants based reactively vs. voting with alignment of mandate + goals.
-
We also acknowledge the precedent for contributor compensation. Our view is simply one of prioritization, in this current lean bear market, we believe every possible dollar should be skewed toward the developers building the actual protocol utility. That is what is going to provide long-term growth (and longivity) for the protocol.
Finally and regardless, we do wish you and Kaf a very productive 25 days at Ipê Village. Regardless of the vote outcome, we look forward to seeing the Demo Day results and hope to be proven wrong regarding the retention of these projects.
We will be voting Against based on the strategic and financial points raised throughout this thread.