In the initial submission, we voted in favor of the proposal as we considered it a valuable experiment. However, given the current circumstances and how this resubmission was handled, we have some concerns we would like to address for the sake of transparency.
It’s concerning to see a proposal resubmitted without reaching quorum, particularly when no changes or community feedback were addressed. This practice sets a poor precedent and can undermine the integrity of governance processes. Typically, if a proposal fails to meet quorum, it’s expected that discussions should continue for an extended period, allowing for more input before resubmission. Not voting and withholding quorum is a suboptimal but common strategy used by communities to signal that more work or consensus is needed.
Additionally, some concerns raised by community members include:
- The lack of consideration for those using Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs), which would allow validators to deposit their GNO and still use the card.
- The geographic limitations of the user base, which could be addressed before launching a cashback campaign.
- The absence of comprehensive reporting back to the DAO, is a point of critique from several participants.
It’s worth noting that once a robust delegate program is activated, this proposal might naturally reach quorum, whether for approval or rejection.