Thanks to @Coltron.eth for the substantial coordination work here and for keeping this process moving.
I continue to have concerns about the size and structure of the SPP spend, and I’ll restate them here:
- In the current environment, with the protocol’s current financial picture , this is too much capital to pre-commit.
- We still do not have enough historical evidence that this allocation strategy is delivering strong DAO-level ROI.
- Setting a large top-line budget before we know exactly what will be funded is backwards; scope should drive budget, not the other way around.
- This model can work for smaller grants programs, but spend at this scale needs tighter sequencing and stronger budget discipline.
This is consistent with my prior voting rationale on SPP budgeting, where I made the case for a more conservative baseline and incremental increases based on demonstrated outcomes: EP 6.3 post #7
I will be voting “No”, not as dissent against the overall approach, but because the evidence to date suggests the SPP currently functions more as a community support program than a model with clearly demonstrated DAO-level return, and this social post is both program authorization as well as approval of the committee model.
I appreciate the work that has gone into SPP3, but I am not convinced the existing evidence supports this as prudent use of the protocol’s revenue.