I see. Thank you for your comments but no I disagree. I think the requested compensation is extremely high for the amount of people and the open-ended scope is just too broad and not well defined for a 2 year scope.
I can’t in good conscience vote for this, so I will be voting against it.
I would be glad to reconsider if you at any point address those points.
At Kleros Coop we have decided to vote FOR this proposal. We will vote through our delegate @SEEDLatam cf this Twitter thread.
Even if the budget is in the high range, we think the opportunity cost of doing nothing is just too high. In our opinion, Gnosis Guild is a good candidate for the stewardship of Gnosis DAO and fostering key governance innovations like Futarchy.
Following @0xAlex , SEED Gov voted FOR GIP-99 to support Gnosis Guild’s governance work, but we have reservations about the budget.
Our vote reflects Kleros’ delegated voting rights, as they are unable to vote directly. Not our own beliefs.
See our full rationale here: SEED Gov Voting Rationale for GIP-99.
We encourage continued discussion on budget clarity and accountability.
While here at Breadchain we are very interested in the type of work and improvements that Gnosis Guild is detailing in the proposal, we have similar reservations as expressed by others. It seems that the spend is either quite high or not described in detail enough to justify. We think that a new proposal from Gnosis Guild that answers many of the concerns from the community that have been listed would help ease a lot of the reservations. So we voted against but with the belief that a new proposal would likely be passed if it answers the questions mentioned in the thread.
Thanks for the lively discussion and vote everyone. It was cool to see the DAO engaged in decentralized negotiation, out in the open rather than behind closed doors.
It’s clear there’s a need here but evidently requires a different format as many of you expressed. Back to the drawing board!