DFINITY Foundation’s vote on Governance proposal #80970 (“Spam proposal”) and #86639 ("Temperature Check")

[paulyoung]

Hi @Accumulating.icp

Thank you for raising these points.

---

@Accumulating.icp

a current problem has not been accurately defined, that constitutes the need for a treasury
-developers have access to grants, VCs, and soon the community fund. for-profits / non-profits should be routed to the appropriate source of funding, rather than trying to utilize network influence to create new sources of funding

I tried to provide my perspective on this here:

A Call to Action: Using the NNS for Growth

The “problem” (as I see it) is that for a number of projects: The grants program is not a good fit no money up front limited funding tiers less confidence for recipients about runway Traditional investors (angels, VCs) are not a good fit See Jordan’s comments from above: More generally, these also have processes that are decided by centralized entities and depend on a smaller number of people when compared to the broader community. As for why people haven’t heard that more projects a…

In summary, some people’s experience has been that the existing options aren’t enough and that there’s a gap for things the community might otherwise like to see funded.

---

@Accumulating.icp

there is no decentralized, responsible mechanic to manage a treasury. majority of VP% is centralized among a few NN. there is no kyc, and no responsibility. how do we ensure transparency of funds, and that people are held accountable? it seems premature to me.

From what I’ve seen, the biggest proponents of furthering a treasury discussion have also been the ones acknowledging these issues the most.

I’m not sure I’d say “premature” but I understand the sentiment.

I’ve also seen how specific use cases without clear solutions can drive innovation in areas that improve things overall, so I think it would be a shame to dismiss ideas and not explore them because of that.