I will be maintaining my “Against” vote for reasons notes above
While I am appreciative of some of the feedback being taken into consideration for Tally vote, I do not believe the core issue I have raised was addressed - why should we extend the STIP to run alongside the LTIPP when we can just roll these funds into a more comprehensive 2nd LTIPP round? Because of this my initial concerns still stand. The LTIPP has had some faults to learn from, but I believe it has largely been a step forward from the STIPP round and to just extend those who previously passed a STIP round (yes, I acknowledge subject to Snapshot vote) is a step back.
Two positive ideas I want to take from the proposal however, as I acknowledge there has been a lot of work and thought put into this proposal and there are good take aways here.
- Optimistic voting: I’d be curious to see this in action for a future grant round. While 77 votes is still a lot, the council did reject a lot of applicants. So I think there was some success in that change to the process, but the Optimistic voting method probably would reduce the DAO Delegates voting responsibility even more. As I’d imagine you’d be looking at maybe only a handful of contested votes. In hindsight I think the LTIPP trial round would have been a good opportunity to test this.
- Possibility of Extension: I think something like this is a little more palatable for myself then the current STIP-Bridge proposal. I would be more open to STIP/LTIP extension if there seems to be indication the next grant round is going to happen quickly in order to remain competitive in the space, and if this does end up being the case I would recommend putting forth this same proposal but inclusive to all the STIP / LTIPP rounds.