Thanks for the well articulated proposal. After reading @0xRamen 's proposal, as well as this proposal, I would like to highlight a potential area of concern.
By concentrating exclusively on round 1 applicants for the extended budget, we might unintentionally sideline potential candidates who were gearing up for round 2 or those who missed the first round. It’s imperative to ensure adaptability in our approach. Delegates and ARB token holders, after observing the outcomes of round 1 allocations, might have a renewed perspective on which projects truly merit the funding. Their evaluation criteria might have evolved, or they may now identify a previously overlooked candidate as more deserving.
I do acknowledge and value the time and effort our delegates invested in evaluating the round 1 applications. But, using that as a basis, it’s also worth noting that they wouldn’t necessarily need to double their efforts for a potential round 2. Many of the proposals would likely be identical to those previously evaluated, making it essentially a revote rather than a complete re-evaluation.
By keeping a more flexible approach, we can ensure that all deserving projects get the opportunity they warrant. This proposal, in its current state, seems like just a mere retroactive airdrop and it would be hard for me to support.
I believe an AIP acknowledging round 2 participants, including all other round 1 previous applicants, would be the best way to ensure a fair distribution of grant proceeds if an extension were to occur.