I love the idea behind this proposal, but I am not a fan of it’s execution. I am a stanch advocate against having the DAO has to vote on every single proposal.
I understand that this is a stop gap solution, and I am hopeful that the “more robust, sustainable program” designed soon avoids having a DAO vote to pass every proposal.
As I have said before, I have a lot more faith in the DAO’s ability to make a few high level decisions than lots of small one off decisions. If we want to distribute $25M-75M of ARB incentives, we would be better off hiring a high-caliber trustworthy people to manage the approval of these projects as a transparent un-bias committee, otherwise we will suffer from voter apathy, popularity contests, and governance capture.
As a DAO we can keep a few of these committees accountable, I don’t have faith in our ability to keep 50-100 projects accountable.
Having sooooo many votes is not a healthy, successful way for DAOs to function, the limited bandwidth of busy delegates should be focused on high level decisions. Distributing this much money deserves a dedicated group of thoughtful decision makers, who’s top priority is distributing the funds. The Optimism Grant Council really exemplifies this especially compared to the other processes they have tried. I hope we can follow that success and avoid spamming our DAO with countless proposals.
So I will be voting: Against, 25M, 50M, 75M. It is clear that this proposal will likely pass, and I will participate as a delegate in good faith, but I still believe it is important that I hold this dissenting voice.