@PGov , thank you for the comment. I think we’ve done a really poor job at communicating this clearly enough, but the motivation behind AVI is:
a) venture investment is something that should start replacing purely grant based above a certain scale to preserve the sustainability of the treasury among other things. And we’ve stated that at time of writing it looks like high volume investment in the ecosystem is on order based on macro conditions. The timeline anticipated is up to 12-18 months to structure that, at the scale suggested and integrate any other commitments that might have happened along the way. This would in fact allow plenty of time for learnings from other initiatives like GCP that is already 9 months ahead to materialise.
b) more importantly as things like the GCP are starting to happen we need to avoid a piecemeal approach where a number of these initiatives happen without an integrated strategy, thesis, theory of change, logic model and efficacy metrics, that connects to the lifecycle of the DAO and it’s core business.
hence supporting AVI is directly aligned with alleviating the concern you’ve raised.
Would you be for joining a call on that topic or a twitter space, which we can open to others too to tackles these issues?