There’s a lot in the proposal that we like and that we hope to see implemented in the DAO in different ways, however we voted against this as we did in the temp check. Our reasoning is fairly similar. While we would love to see more people get the context they need to be effective delegates, we still don’t see a path for them to stay involved with the DAO in the long term. As far as we can tell, in the best case scenario the protocol or team they get matched with retain them after the two months and continue to engage with the DAO in that way. However, if that’s the case, we think the protocols should bear some of the cost as this ends up becoming a recruiting method for them. Additionally, the total cost makes it too hard to approve this as an experimental exercise that we don’t necessarily mind not getting a big ROI on.
We voted for on this. While we aren’t entirely comfortable with how this transition happened, we put a lot of weight on the ADPC’s recommendation to go forward with the Foundation’s plan. We also appreciate the additions around the transparency reports.
We voted for on this. We don’t think the fee structure is the best for all three providers but we think they’re all capable and the strategies they put forth seem reasonable.
We voted against this. While covered calls do seem like a reasonable strategy, we’re a bit concerned that both providers chose one platform to run this portion on. We would be more comfortable with a smaller allocation to run this, or finding additional venues to diversify risk a bit.
We used all our voting power to support OpenZeppelin. There isn’t a lot that’s particularly interesting to say here. OZ is a well known and trusted organization, and while only one person is responsible for being a signer, we think there are clear benefits to having an entire team of people who can be tapped for help on any given issue.