Hi, just caught up with reading this and I want to echo @dk3 and @limes.
One thing the advocates of the Option 2: Grant extension to round 1 are not considering is that delegates knew and did vote according to the agreed rules, which were very clear:
Only 50m were going to be allocated, only with those criteria.
Implying that the other protocols that didn’t meet the threshold would have automatically achieved it with a larger grant cap, is not correct. Delegates could have voted more strongly against proposals - instead, we abstained or didn’t vote against projects that were not meeting that specific threshold.
The options here should be only to create a new independent proposal, or run a round 2.
Changing anything for round 1 would be unfair.
STIP round 1 ended with those results, and I understand it’s frustrating for protocols/communities that didn’t make it, but there will be (and we can create) new initiatives.