Looking at this proposal more critically, I have concerns about the underlying value proposition.
While I understand the intention to support builders, ARB’s downward price movement appears correlated with sell pressure from our various funding initiatives. Before approving additional top-ups, we should address this fundamental issue.
What’s missing from this proposal is essential context - which specific projects from the previous round are actually bringing demonstrable value to the ecosystem? The proposal assumes delegates have all these details, but to make an informed vote, we need a comprehensive breakdown of:
- Which projects would receive continued funding
- What specific value they’ve delivered so far
- How their continued development aligns with ecosystem priorities
- What measurable outcomes we should expect from additional funding
Without this clear accounting of potential projects and expected returns, it’s difficult to justify additional treasury expenditure. I’d appreciate a detailed breakdown of these elements to facilitate more informed voting decisions.
As stewards of the treasury, we need to ensure funding flows to initiatives that create sustainable value.