Considerations:
I am sharing my considerations with the intent of being helpful, not judgmental. Everything that benefits our DAO should be pursued and completed.
The 100K figure might be a rough estimate of the total cost. Similarly, setting a target of 100 projects may not be a highly professional approach. However, the more projects we complete, the better. This approach is honest and alleviates some pressure from those managing the project. I understand the DAO’s response to a similar comment, but I still believe that reducing stress for the members is important. My concern stems from past experiences where project costs were miscalculated.
I also believe that assistance with auditing is necessary, as it could help reduce overall costs. However, before investing resources into auditing, each project should be carefully evaluated. If a project has fundamental issues that are likely to lead to its abandonment, spending money on auditing it would be wasteful. Pushing a problematic project forward only for it to be abandoned later would result in unnecessary expenses.
Pros:
More projects will be completed, hopefully at a lower cost, leading to increased income for the DAO.
ADPC, one of our core components, will have another opportunity to provide value to the DAO by ensuring projects reach completion rather than being abandoned.
A point that I find noteworthy is that two committee members are waiving their payment. While I do not oppose committee payments in general, I have observed cases where committees charge excessively high fees, which makes me more skeptical about certain proposals. In this case, the fact that members are voluntarily forgoing their compensation reflects a commitment to the DAO’s success rather than personal gain. (In general, I believe that fair compensation aligned with market standards is reasonable. However, when fees are disproportionately high, it raises concerns about whether the primary motivation is the DAO’s well-being or financial gain)
There is much more to discuss regarding this proposal, but I do not wish to repeat arguments that have already been analyzed. Instead, I have focused on the key points that justify my FOR vote.