I want to begin by acknowledging the high quality of this proposal’s content and structure. It’s clear and transparent, which is commendable. The commitment to providing quarterly reports and a monthly treasury update is especially important in our Celo ecosystem. If the DAO can consistently deliver around this promise, it could set a strong precedent for the entire ecosystem.
Now, turning to the budget:
Given that this is a new initiative, I strongly recommend adjusting the initial budget. A leaner starting point would significantly increase the likelihood of the proposal passing and give the DAO a chance to demonstrate impact before requesting a larger allocation.
My specific suggestions:
- Remove the Celo Guardian/Steward (Advisory) budget. An independent DAO should not fund a Celo Guardian. It raises concerns about impartiality and integrity. If strategic guidance is essential, it should come from industry experts with domain expertise, such as an artist or a consulting firm with a background in arts.
- Re-evaluate the moderator time commitment and corresponding budget. Based on the profiles you shared, a 50–75% time commitment (20–30 hours/week) seems unrealistic given their existing professional obligations (Software developers and builders). A 25% time commitment is more aligned with expectations and should be reflected in the budget.
- Adjust the grant pool structure. Reducing the number and size of grants, particularly in the Emerald and Diamond pools, will make the program more manageable in its early stages while demontrating effectiveness of the DAO. A revised target of 10 grants for the Emerald pool and 3 for the Diamond pool would be more pragmatic.
- Rename “Contingency” (Emergency?) to “DAO Expenditure”. This change in terminology better reflects the purpose of the fund and avoids confusion about its intended use.