Pretty excited about this one. We believe that it is the natural step after some intense seasons past in the distribution of funds to different initiatives, which have fulfilled their mission (others not so much) and that it is time to iterate on something different. Having the foundation propose missions is a good first step; however, we believe that the missions of the foundation must have a feedback stage with the governance to improve their scope.
About alliances and reputation
We understand that quests will bring in new participants who will be intent on proposing or completing a quest. We believe that the presentations of the alliances and the reputation system are well established so that governance has a detail of who, the group of people, are behind these working groups and where we can request information on how they are progressing with their tasks.
If approved, the first step is for the (approved) alliances to have a category in the forum where each one can update in the form of a thread, the progress and milestones of the missions.
About Access to Upfront Capital
Based on our experience in the need for financing for the development of initiatives, we believe that there should be an item for the proposals to choose how much initial capital they would require to start up, in a range no greater than 30% of the total, taking into account the size of the grant, with the explicit details of expenses and their justification and why they would be having difficulties raising funds from other sources, we should evaluate that possibility.
Also, a locking period for funds for one year is a barrier that can prevent new players from working in the Optimism ecosystem. This can lead to the fact that we have already known actors, which leads to a centralization of the services provided to the DAO. Governance must consider the economic difficulties of some regions to access immediate financing. This is a common concern already seen in places like Latin America.