I’m voting against this proposal for several reasons.
As a judge who participated in the program, I believe I have a unique perspective on this matter. During the process, it became evident that a significant portion of applicants were likely fraudulent or created projects solely to exploit the funding. This was essentially an attempt to seize funds without delivering genuine value.
Anyone who applied to be a judge, regardless of the number of votes they received (even zero), was eligible to become a judge. There were even instances of sybil attacks on the judge board that were uncovered during the program.
I understand that some applicants who are requesting financial restitution may have had legitimate projects. However, this doesn’t negate the fact that the overall system was flawed. After almost a year, we can no longer thoroughly investigate all winners and determine which ones are legitimate and which ones are not. Given the choice between allocating more funds to all winners or none, I believe none is the appropriate option. We must implement stricter rules to prevent individuals from attempting to exploit the DAO.
Even if they are requesting a relatively small amount, I believe this is a matter of principle. It’s crucial to uphold integrity in the process to safeguard the DAO’s funds and reputation. This is why I chose to vote against this proposal on Snapshot.
If we intend to replicate a similar program in the future, it’s essential to approach it with greater caution and establish clearer guidelines to avoid these kinds of issues. The entire program, as it existed, was problematic.