The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting “Do not fund” on this proposal.
The reason we’re voting against the proposal doesn’t have to do as much with each individual application but rather because the whole ‘retroactive funding’ structure was in our opinion poorly set up from the get-go. While we understand the reasoning behind intentionally leaving the scope of retroactive funding vague, we believe it had the opposite of the desired effect.
It’s extremely difficult to assess each individual application because there’s no criteria to do so, especially when it comes to the impact the contributions had on the LTIPP. Given that, funding any of the applicants wouldn’t be based on any objective metrics. And funding all of them would feel like we’re doing simply because the funds were earmarked for that purpose, which is a precedent we don’t want to set.
Overall, although we find individual contributions to be valueable, we feel that the amounts being requested are not justified. However, due to the structure of this ‘retroactive funding’ they are non-negotiable at this point. Therefore, we’ve decided not to vote for any of the requests.
In any future programs, we encourage the compensation for impactful contributions to the LTIPP, but with a different method with objective criteria or KPIs set up in advance.