After consideration, I believe that the DAO should focus on improving its future processes rather than providing retroactive compensation for past administrative delays. I’m echoing this argument:
I understand that the delays caused frustration and challenges for the grantees but compensating them with additional funds is not the appropriate solution. The amount requested to counterbalance the inconvenience is subjective and as @404DAO commented, it sets a problematic precedent. Deploying extra funds in response to delays is neither sustainable nor in the best interest of the DAO.
Instead, we should offer continuous support to these builders through future grants and resources based on their commitment and progress. This approach aligns with our mission, focused in innovation and growth within the ecosystem.
I understand and respect @paulofonseca’s view that “the restitution is for the lateness mostly,” but in my opinion, lateness alone does not warrant additional funding.
The argument that the requested amount is relatively small and the DAO has substantial funds does not justify compensation. We should focus on rectifying the underlying administrative issues so that grant processes are delivered in time and efficiently moving forward.
Therefore, I am voting AGAINST the proposal for additional compensation and advocate for strategic improvements to prevent such delays in the future.