The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We previously supported the proposal during temp-check and we voted in favor of version 1.5 as it introduced some additional qualitative criteria that we think is the right approach. The questions and points we raised with our comment when we voted during temp-check have been addressed, and we are now comfortable voting in favor of the proposal onchain.
We’d like to stress once more that we’ll rely on SEEDGov to monitor the program and communicate its progress, especially with the addition of the qualitative criteria. We expect them to attend all the monthly oversight calls to provide updates and, most importantly, highlight anything that might not work as expected or intended.
With SEEDGov having more control and discretion over the program, they also have more responsibility. We expect that they will communicate with delegates proactively and we’ll be holding them accountable for the proper administration of the program. Specifically, and as noted in our previous comment, we’d like to know whether it makes sense continuing with v1.5, or if it’s more sensible to fallback to the previous version.