A 2-year option seems like a good idea.
What if a provider asks for the maximum, and is ranked such that 90% of the “two year budget” is already taken?
I’d suggest instead specifying that a provider can only qualify for a 2 year grant if they have already successfully received a 1 year grant.
Also, a way in which the DAO can give notice to terminate a provider becomes more important as the maximum duration of a grant increases.
Finally, it seems likely that there’d need to be some way for a 2-year stream recipient to request a budget adjustment outside the 2-year cycle.
I understand the motivation here, but this seems to introduce a lot of complexity to the budgeting and voting process. I think this is best left out. Perhaps candidates could simply state their Minimum Viable Budget, and at the end of the selection process, a candidate may be included if the remaining budget is at least that minimum?
Alternatively, if we must, this could be equivalently expressed as “base budget” and “extra budget”; the expectation being that the “base budget” for a candidate would always rank higher, and thus there’s no need to eliminate accepted proposals etc.
