Thanks for putting out this proposal - super thorough and constructive! Some thoughts, as part of the Stanford Blockchain governance team:
- The premise, of “we’re leaving lots of grants on the table” seems to make sense.
- I’d be curious to understand AlphaGrowth’s unique value add to this task. Many Uniswap delegates, especially those one committees have extensive connections in industry. Why would that not be sufficient for this BD task? Is it a bandwidth concern? Mandate concern? Understanding this would also lead to a clearer understanding of the division of labor between delegates and AlphaGrowth
- Related to this, I’d love to see more info on previous track record - how much value has AlphaGrowth contributed to other DAOs?
- Regarding marketing, would these initiatives be marketed as AlphaGrowth initiatives or Uniswap DAO initiatives? As a major protocol with reputable brand, we want to be mindful of the events/materials and other content that we’re putting our name on - would be curious of how oversight works here.
- A six month trial period makes sense. I’d be curious on the evaluation metrics of this trial period. What are the criteria and suitable baseline for us to evaluate against?