I think there is a misunderstanding because I am saying we should do all the things you are asking to do. We are on the same side.
I ALSO would like to start the process of getting qualitive data to understand if users are leaving and for what reasons. I am not saying we need to wait to get the responses to do something.
I’ve advocated that the DAO does take risks, shouldn’t wait for the framework, and should worry about momentum in multiple threads. This stance has been consistent from the beginning.
Perhaps when someone sees that I am leading a team which is designing a grants framework, they mistakenly think I am the one advocating to wait for the framework. This is more a decision by large delegates who don’t want to yield their outsized voting weight without knowing how the DAO feels… which would be provided in our framework discovery. I think is is safe to fund some things quickly that might not be the best outcomes.
I’ve even spearheaded getting the liquidity incentives working group going even if it is out of the Plurality Labs scope. i volunteered to organize and facilitate the first workshop, found a leader in the group who could push it forward, and offered retro comp through a future retrofunding program to get the conversation moving.
This Liquidity incentive working group has met twice to figure out how to pass something before the framework is ready. You can read about it here: Arbitrum Incentives Program - Working Group - #9 by tnorm