Everything else aside, this above seems like a point worthy of discussion.
How does governance perform due diligence on projects? Whatever a project promises in a grant proposal, if a DAO has outstanding legal obligations, or an "ongoing dispute relating to customer funds’, this could result in unexpected consequences.
I find it pretty shocking reading back on the Phase 0 Proposal the lack of serious discussion around giving such an enormous amount of $OP to Perp. As one of the two most significant grants (that I am aware of, alongside Synthetix’s 9m OP) one would expect that this grant would have had a marked impact on increasing liquidity, TVL, and user transactions on Optimism. And that every delegate would have participated in the discussion.
Why wasn’t there more debate? Was this simply because Perp is a longstanding part of OP ecosystem?
Obviously, we cannot expect every grant to succeed in its goals, and its too early to say how Perp will use the funds remaining, and the impact it will have. But considering some of the debates I’ve witnessed over relatively small amounts of $OP, it definitely is important for us to examine exactly how this happened.
If Perp feels like the current use of funds has had a positive impact on the growth of $OP, they should make that case, and we should work with them to ensure that their use of the remaining funds is +EV for the network.