This is a wonderful report, but I don’t understand why this committee should be continued?
I have read the entire report carefully and this is what I realized:
-
All groups and committees are created for a specific purpose.
That is, the purpose must first appear, and I see that we are trying to come up with work for the existing committee. -
I see a lot of work on analyzing various protocols and proposals, some of which are very important and necessary (everything that concerns information security, of course).
But these tasks appear rarely and irregularly, and we do not know whether there will be a need for this work.
However, to create a whole committee, and then a supervisory board (by the way, who will monitor that the supervisory board does something? This can lead to absurdity). -
Research is necessary for some complex proposal that most delegates will not be able to analyze due to its specificity (a lot of code, complex formulas, etc.). In this case, the author of the proposal simply needs to budget some amount for this research.
But there is no need to create and support a large structure for work that may not appear. This is a large financial burden without obvious advantages for the DAO.
I think that DAO should support research work exactly when it is needed for some proposal.
Or tell me the arguments in favor of this proposal, I can’t see them.