Thanks @JanaBe for your comments and explanations.
There’s still missing some information from my understanding, though, and there was not enough time given to discuss and address the concerns from my perspective, why I ultimately voted against this proposal. These include:
-
regarding 2: Thanks for outlining the revenues and, given there’s room for improvement, adding some KPIs for the next year.
-
regarding 3.: despite searching through published reports and being present in the calls, I couldn’t find, or I don’t recall, an accurate report of all the DAOs assets. There’s the public on-chain treasury and some safe wallets, but these do not add up to the estimations given by the foundation.
That’s the nr. 1 info when proposing a budget. Not necessarily including details, but there should be public (and accessible) information about the DAO’s assets. -
The proposal still does not give a more detailed explanation of the budget areas. There should be clearer info which bucket goes towards which cause (as done on the 2023 budget proposal). Again, not every expense but more than just one number per category.
-
regarding 5.: the 2023 budget states 48k yearly for Stablelab (@Jose_StableLab) as a professional delegate. Since then, there’s no detailed budget information, so I’m just guessing it’s the same amount for this year.
The DAO is definitely in need of governance contributions, so I’m not generally opposed to payments or incentives. But I’m wondering if you can share which services are included in this agreement, compared to regular delegates? Also, it’s a conflict of interest voting for their own compensation.
Despite, I’m happy the foundation can continue their work in the next year and further develop the RARI ecosystem.