Good thoughts. Sharing my responses below to your two points against backfunding:
- The DAO implemented its established procedure with a designated budget, and this process led to the current result. Attempting to alter the outcome post-decision could establish an undesirable precedent for future DAO decisions.
@tnorm and other working group members for the original STIP acknowledged that there needed to be options if the funding limit was exceeded because of unknown demand. This information was directly in the official STIP proposal. We can make things right!
- Protocols preparing for round 2 would be treated unfairly by a ‘round 1.5’, both in terms of equal consideration for funding with projects that didn’t receive funding in round 1, and likely delays to round
Having projects that reached quorum successfully but didn’t get funded because of budgetary issues receive a more immediate funding is not unfair imo. These projects worked their ass off already to get delegate votes and structure a proposal that is relevant for now vs later.
We can backfund AND make a concerted effort to push forward an equitable round 2 structure ASAP.
Check out the Sushiswap V2 STIP working group proposal: V2 Incentives Program - Working Group (STIP Round 2) - #2 by Djinn