I have voted for “1 cohort of 8 weeks, funding 2.5m”.
The DAO has shown a near unanimous desire to create a framework for security service providers as indicated from the results of the proposal. As well as put their trust in the 3 committee members elected to use their expertise to find the best path forward. While I absolutely love to see the discussion and feedback, I also want to show a good-faith trust in those elected to the committee and see their idea through. For that reason, I think the 8 week trial funding is a good start for this. This should give us the opportunity to view how successful this type of process is and re-assess at a later date.
I’ll add, the ADPC’s willingness to take feedback into consideration is noted and part of the reason I think it’s fair to move this forward with an exploratory period. This is a good indication that they are willing to take a look at how the next 8 weeks go and have an honest feedback on what can be improved.
As for general opinions, I do think @McFly brings up a good point regarding negotiating discounts. I don’t even want to begin to pretend I know what going rates are, but I think it’s important to remember that Arbitrum is a leader in this space and should be able to reap some of the benefits of that when it comes to bargaining power.
I will also agree with others - I’m not sure I’m for giving additional compensation to multisig signers after the fact.
Edit: My opinion is unchanged since the Snapshot vote, to save space editing this response to indicate that I will be voting “For” on Tally.