Was only able to read this now. Thanks @Vibhor for pointing this out to me 
First, would like to recall there is an “open guidelines” explaining how Dfinity is voting (or abstaining):
It already has a section saying:
Project Maturity
[Amendment November 14th 2024]
It is generally recommended that projects aiming to launch with SNS have a working product, demonstrated product-market fit, and some level of community traction.
But how “strict” that is being applied, on cases of NF request projects, has been perhaps too “relaxed”, and agree the NF could have been “gamed”. 
Dfinity and Synapse Vote (and CodeGov follows it) voting philosophy has been more like:
“As long as the project has meaningful code on the IC, let the governance proposal pass and let the Investors be the ultimate deciders.”
So in a nutshell, what I feel is the real problem, is the “mixing” of approving a Neuron Fund commitment from the approving of an SNS to be formed. They are different things and this would only be fully solved if they are separated.
I think they have kept it simple for as long as they could, but feel eventually this would need to evolve into something like:
Proposal:
- If on SNS config, it has “neuron_fund”: true,
- then immediately after the SNS is approved, create a new proposal, with topic “neuron_fund” (topic to be created)
- and depending on it’s approval / rejection, the fund would commit.
It’s just a small step, but can make all the difference. After this is implemented, Dfinity, Synapse Vote and other Known Neurons that would like to specialize on that topic, they can vote specifically if they believe it’s a good investment or not for Neuron Fund.
Tagging @bjoernek, @lara and @aterga as relevant people for this idea.
Thanks all and looking forward for feedback