The use of 6 month was based on your input (you suggested 6 or 12 months and we answered on the 12 month here, question 2, it has now been 7 months). You are now suggesting that the first tranche stays for 12/18/30 months before a second tranche without providing any new element. You can understand that it sounds like it could be delayed forever.
Depriving ENS from additional revenues on strategies that ENS community voted on is hardly improving ENS resiliency. Quite the opposite in our view.
@kpk has already answered on their plan to diversify (target 50% Lido, 30% Rocket Pool, 20% others). If ENS community wants a specific allocation, it is welcome. It could be equal weighted for instance. Or 0% to any LST over 22% concentration. I hardly see how voting no on this proposal which has nothing to do with it is achieving the result you are looking for? Happy to work with @kpk on a proposal if that can help. @superphiz please let us know what you would suggest so we can take your input in consideration.
In any case, thanks @James and @superphiz for taking the time to write a forum post on your reasoning.