First and foremost, Griff, I want to applaud you for establishing such a net-positive model. Often grant programs are large gambles for the ecosystem. But, the alignment here has managed to assuage the vast majority of economic risk while also preserving, and in some ways expanding, benefits to the recipients.
I echo a lot of the positive feedback as well as some of the points of consideration (namely, token necessity) which have been stated, and you largely addressed.
A couple of new points of consideration which I’d love your thoughts on are around administrative considerations for the DAO. If we assume this becomes a readily adopted and seasonal model utilized by the DAO, the treasury, in a sense, becomes a venture portfolio with micro allocations of dozens of q/acc funded project tokens. I by no means think this is a blocker, but I do believe this opens a couple of avenues warranting greater consideration:
- Accounting: How does the process of acquiring, selling, and transferring these micro investments impact treasury accounting?
- Operational Decision Making: The decision tree around selling (reinvesting?), staking, voting with, or otherwise utilizing these received assets seems important. Simultaneously, I am not sure that it would warrant a DAO proposal for every adjustment. Perhaps, within the proposal, there should be some affordance toward a portfolio manager or management team, or this could simply be an added role ascribed to the q/acc program managers. In either case, this would be a need that persists well beyond the round itself, so maybe partnering with other capital management initiatives already extant might be a solution as well.
Interested to hear your thoughts and past experiences on these points ^