Appreciate the thoughtfulness in the implementation approach here. Chiming in from the sidelines:
- I’m leaning toward high execution discipline—guardrails now avoid ambiguity later and set a safer trajectory for the SPP.
- Wherever possible, we should separate political risk from service provider funding. DAO vote delays shouldn’t impact contributor livelihoods, especially when funding has already been committed.
- Year 2 stream guarantees are essential. Given how contentious SPP2 was, it’s not far-fetched to expect that future SPP cycles could face similar delays.
- Complexity is acceptable, but only if it’s not time-prohibitive. We’re nearly into Q3, and we shouldn’t delay funding any further.
- Procedural flexibility is okay—even if we’re not following the original proposal text to the letter, actions that are spiritually aligned and directionally correct feel valid to me.
- If the DAO is setting a precedent here, that should be made explicit. The rationale should be laid out clearly—so there’s no daylight between intent, implementation, and delegate understanding.
A few questions I’d like to raise:
- If adding end-dates requires a custom smart contract interaction, how quickly can that be implemented? @netto.eth
- What exactly is the precedent being set here? Could the Meta-Governance Working Group spell that out explicitly?
- How do we guarantee funding streams for Year 2 recipients if we skip end-dates? If not via stream logic, then what governance structure will ensure that protection?