These are very large amounts of funding being proposed to be spent in a very short amount of time. Historically, bringing many grant proposals to a delegate-wide vote has not resulted in prudent spending (Optimism’s early grants are an excellent example of how this very model does not perform well). Realistically, most will receive de minimis review and likely be approved.
It would be good if there was some kind of structured review process or curation process beyond simply finding a delegate to sponsor a proposal. A maximum cap on what a project can request is also recommended. The lower tiers with caps allow grantees to request amounts ~15% of their TVL - which seems both very high and very arbitrary.
We applaud the concept, but it is a struggle to understand why solicitation of direct-to-governance-vote grant applications is the process chosen here.
There are not a lot of examples of that performing well. It’s also just very hard to spend even 25,000,000 ARB in the next 3 months without just giving money to the lowest effort grantees.
What is it about this proposal that makes people think 20-30 grant proposals flooding the forum will receive proper diligence (to avoid ghost projects, unlaunched projects, technically infeasible plans, etc) without someone explicitly charged with providing either a recommendation or a neutral summary of each one?