The website is very well made and it looks well-engineered. I think one of the main reasons this project seems costly for delegates is the fact that it is trying to go beyond the basic needs of an information hub. The project looks structured as to be both, an information repository and an analytics platform.
This is potentially creating an unnecessary scope expansion and also driving up costs, as it includes research and copyright roles. Engaged delegates within the DAO already have all the information accessible in order to make informed decisions. While I agree that some of this information might seem scattered, it is easy enough to find if one puts a little bit of effort. The argument that we need a comprehensive platform with full-time research and content creation roles to enable participation seems to overstate the actual barriers to entry.
A hub with the characteristics mentioned in the proposal would be convenient, but this convenience does not justify the cost, especially not knowing how useful it will be once it is operational. Passing this proposal risks creating an expensive, ongoing obligation without clear evidence that it would meaningfully improve governance participation or decision-making.
For this reasons, I am voting AGAINST in Snapshot.
Having said this, I do recognize the team’s resilience and their technical prowess. I commend you to continue building and keep creating new projects.