First of all — UF is doing a great job! I believe that many will agree that UF has been a net positive for the space.
However, this is a significant request for this type of funding. And we’re in a bear market, the tokenholders already suffer, so the expenses should be carefully balanced with the expected impact.
Some further thoughts / questions.
- You have defined vision but no concrete target KPIs in the proposal. Can you comment on that?
- Regarding “Projected Team Growth” - it’s unclear why these new positions are essential to achieve the objectives. Are they all full-time roles? I think this category has potential for budget cuts.
- I’m particularly concerned about removing governance approval for grants larger than $2M. UF already has considerable autonomy in fund allocation for most scenarios. I can’t imagine why going through governance for 2M+ grants is such a problem?
- Accountability in general - have you thought of some kind of oversight board / committee, or involving third party auditors? It’s a large amount of $ for stakeholders with conflicting interests. The DAO, by its nature, can’t realistically manage this oversight. Some delegation of responsibilities is required. I realize that even defining “good” outcomes is hard (defining KPI would help!) and there’s no way how the oversight board itself can be guaranteed to be “neutral”.
- If the market value of the provided UNI exceeds the requested dollar amount, do you have plans for the surplus tokens? Would you commit in advance to returning them to the treasury?
Conflict of interest: I’m a former grant recipient from the UF.