I support the proposal. This is a pragmatic, one-time fix to keep a DAO-approved initiative on track and maintain trust with builders, especially given the time-sensitive nature of these projects.
However, I share @Curia’s concern about adhering to the DAO’s process of returning unused funds to the treasury. Beside, the month-long proposal process for shortfall requests, as seen here, is a significant hurdle for service providers facing ARB volatility.
The TMC’s proposed stablecoin withdrawal process is a step forward but falls short for urgent cases like HCP. I proposed a suggestion here to add on TMC’s proposal.
TMC’s proposed process aims to streamline the procedure for projects with budget shortfalls to request additional stablecoins from TMC. However, we believe that it’s necessary for the DAO, AF, and TMC to have better visibility over the budget status of all the live projects so as to how much has been spent, how much will be spent, if there’s going to be any shortfall, and how much will be left to prevent the situation HCP is facing from happening again.
The suggestions I’ve made adding on TMC’s proposed process and make it compulsory for projects to report to TMC monthly regarding budget status so that the DAO, AF, and TMC can keep track of the budgets approved, move proactively in case any shortfalls, and be aware of any unspent budgets that need to be clawed back.