Thanks @netto - this is the only item left for the proposal. I agree that honoring the text of proposals is important, but neither of the suggested approaches match the text exactly:
The [EP 6.3] proposal was focused on choosing the amount for the entire stream pot, but it included this relevant bit.
“The budget is set per year. However the actual required budget will need to cover 19 months, because as detailed below, 1/3 of the streams will be budgeted for 2 years and we will add another 3 months of runway to make sure the program is not interrupted by eventual delays in the 2026 vote.”
The issue is that the stream allowance for Year 1 and Year 2 is the same bucket. So it’s actually impossible to guarantee a specific allowance for the Year 2 streams.
For instance, if we add 3 months to both amounts as you suggested here, both Year 1 and Year 2 providers draw simultaneously from the shared allowance.
It’s logically not possible to give the Year 2 streams a guaranteed separate buffer as the text in [EP 6.3] likely intended, because they share the same allowance pool.
I’m okay with either answer, but it seemed that if we can’t guarantee Year 2, we might as well talk in terms of “Year 1 + Extra”, to encourage limited allowance numbers and clarity.
So, the choice is to approve:
-
$6,475,000 new allowance (approach that you’re suggesting - provides 18.73 months total runway)
-
$6,375,000 new allowance (approach suggested in the Readme - provides 18 months total runway)
Both approaches are super close (total runway 18.73 vs 18 months), but neither is the 19 months in the 6.3 text, if that’s what you’re suggesting.