The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re voting FOR the proposal.
We supported the original proposal to fund the Stylus Sprint and believe that we shouldn’t let budget constraints limit the number of projects we can fund simply because we received more applications than perhaps anticipated. That’s even more true if the projects to be funded through the additional funds are high-quality, as evaluated by the committee.
The 17 approved projects receiving funding from the original budget are already a positive outcome—pending their milestone completion, of course—and the opportunity to fund an additional nine projects that have passed most of the evaluation stages should be treated with the same mindset.
One small clarification we’d like to address is a slight discrepancy between the requested budget of 4,000,000 ARB and the 4,058,200 ARB needed to fund all projects. While we understand the committee might be working with the projects to negotiate and finalize the amounts, perhaps it’s worth clarifying what will happen if they fail to reduce the amount asked - will the budget request be increased before the onchain vote?