We assume this proposal was created based on careful considerations by the Grants Council and contributors and it’s generally considered optimal to reallocate unused funds to the needed area, and intend to vote FOR the proposal. We would also like to express appreciation to all contributors involved.
However, we believe the proposal as it is doesn’t quite have sufficient information for a delegate without deep knowledge about the details and progress of those Mission Requests and their Applications to appropriately evaluate it. For example,
- How can we read the tables above? How are the numbers in Cycle Demand calculated? Links to relevant information? (Inconsistency in commas for numbers makes it harder to see too)
- How are those Request numbers calculated? We assume they are from the applications applied to each Mission Request, but why can we justify those requests (or should we all rely on the council to make all decisions correctly?)
- We believe the proposal itself should have its background information, motivation and all the relevant information for all voters to evaluate it. Possibly, it’s the best to follow a template for all on-chain voting proposals.
On a side note, is there a clear rule for delegates that are also members of the Grants Council to abstain from the proposal? We see some delegates abstain but others don’t, which isn’t really consistent and should be clearly defined in our opinion. (We might not fully understand the list of members in the current Grants Council, though.)