I’m voting only to top-up the HCP, I’m against spending the remaining funds elsewhere.
For Ospina’s situation, I fully support the allocation. I’ve been in that exact position myself multiple times - receiving a grant denominated in tokens, watching the token price depreciate before disbursement, and then being unable to deliver what was promised to other stakeholders. It’s good practice to ask for a buffer amount, for future grants. Supporting Daniel here helps him fulfill the promises and expectations from the original approved proposal, and hopefully we can add buffer amounts to future proposals (ALPHA LEAK: I’m doing that for q/acc for sure.)
However,
I want to strongly oppose the idea that “unspent funds can be redirected elsewhere” rather than returning them to the DAO treasury.
This sets a dangerous precedent. When funds aren’t used for their approved purpose, the default should be returning them to the treasury. We can’t normalize this!
This approach of “we have leftover money, let’s find ways to spend it” is honestly just classic government sh*t that we shouldn’t fall into the trap of. If we have money unspent, sending it back to the DAO needs be the norm that we try to proliferate.
Otherwise, we’re no better than governments that pass a tax to fund a bridge or something, and then when the bridge is built, the tax just stays and they use it for other things because “there’s more things we can do with this money” and “oh, we don’t have to pass another proposal.” That’s such bullsh*t. We need to strive to be better than governments.