One of my main grievances with the delegate reward initiative is that delegates are being paid simply to vote, rather than to provide insightful data on proposals. Gauntlet, as a recipient of monthly UNI rewards and a specialist in the type of data analytics required to address these questions, seems well-positioned to answer its own questions regarding the second- and third-order effects of this proposal. Is there a reason Gauntlet cannot provide these answers?
I assume this is due to the hypothetical nature of the questions, and that passing the proposal is the only way to find the true answers?
As for conflicts of interest, this is my second major concern with the reward program. Many rewarded delegates are paid monthly by several different DAOs, creating conflicting interests regarding the competitiveness of those DAOs. Additionally, much of the voting power of these delegates is often delegated from one or two third-party organizations. It is important for all rewarded delegates to disclose potential conflicts of interest to eliminate scrutiny, ensure transparency and diligence, and address potential cross-pollination. Thank you for clarifying that Gauntlet has no financial vested interest in Aerodrome, despite past partnership.