Hey, sorry for the delay. Back from travel last week and still catching up on some personal tasks.
Agree that the value for allowance needs to be 6.35 million, I’ve updated the spreadsheet and that’s also what the spreadsheet points. (The discrepancy between the values was because this field wasn’t filled, my bad).
The main point I’m raising is not about the allowance value, it’s rather about how the end dates, as pointed out in my first comment.
If we don’t have end dates, then the 1 year streams could have a total duration of 18.73 months. While EP 6.3 mentions 3 months of extra runaway (total duration of 15 months for 1 year streams) , so if we let service providers have a larger duration than that, then it should pass through another proposal IMO.
My worry is the DAO spending more than expected (or that was interpreted on 6.3 by delegates) if SPP3 delays to much or doesn’t even happen, who knows. The main thing I’m questioning here is how we gonna interpret and execute, because it can bring some uncertainty for future situations we’ll handle.
The text can also be interpreted as only the 1-year streams having the 3 months extra runaway and 2 years not having it. But there is this comment from Avsa than suggests it has.
So let’s move forward with this and within the next weeks clearly figure that out for aligning expectations and also prevent future surprises.
Thanks for the leadership here @5pence.eth!
And would be great hearing @AvsA’s view about the implementation, as he’s the proposer of SPP!
One last detail:
How can 100k increase have 0.73 month difference in the runaway, if the monthly spending for SPP2 is 375k? I assume the result of the readme should also be 18.73 since we got to the same allowance number.