Ignoring that most of the general questions regarding this proposal have been ignored in the previous thread (which Dom managed to close but not to answer accordingly), here are some things which comes into my mind:
- High level understanding. I don’t think the illustration of “Shimmer Ecosystem Funding” is correct but misleading. The 50% funds of community are operated under TEA not the Community, so this I believe the following illustration is more accurate:
- Governance. In the illustration and also some part of the text it says, the IF will propose the projects for spending the funds. This is contrary/misleading to
“we want to empower the community to take matters into their own hands and fund new initiatives with a part of their treasury tokens.”
Illustration (Box “Shimmer Growth Committee”):
"Approves spending for projects and partnerships proposed by the IF "
Text:
“The IOTA Foundation will prepare specific proposals to use the funds committed to the Shimmer Funding Committee [=Growth Committee?], and the committee will decide if we should take these measures.”
It needs clarification. Are we talking about a set up of: 3x community member + 2x IF member voting on IF proposals only? (Clearly indicating empowering community even less)
- Conflict of interest.
While conflict of interest issues are specified for the Community Committee Reviewer, accordingly for Growth Committee, and information can be found in the applications, what are the specifications/where can I find statements for 3.1) TEA member Saur & Webel? Especially for 3.2) the IF as they act supporting to the Growth committee (“The IOTA Foundation will prepare specific proposals”, see also 2.) ). It also matters because of the affiliation of Dom in SmartContract AG or Nakama (Advisor) and e.g. the public dispute of Nakama and Touchpoint supported “DeepR vs. Lendexe”.
- Transparency.
“At the end of each quarter, there will be a transparency report highlighting where and how the budget was allocated.”
4.1) How can we trust, TEA will not cease transparency just as they did for EDF? EDF are community raised funds in MIOTA to support the ecosystem in the same way as TEA and Growth Committee is intended to. After some transparency Dom and IF stopped (Q1, 2021) the obligation sharing where the funds are going to, despite multiple inquiries of the community. 4 Tis are undeclared/missing now..
- Why did you stop the tansparency?
- Why does the community have to ask for 2 years now?
- How can you ensure you will do better with TEA, while you trample all over past transparency promises?
I gladly remind you, the community is not a cash cow and it is not just “taking but also giving”.
4.2) 47% of the TEA funds have been moved to new adressesm without any transparency. The SMR increase was an initiative for the ecosystem, funds free to use for TEA, so there should be some information on this. As seen in the illustration, the transparency part is also simply let out on the illustration. Why is that? When we voted to increase the SMR by ~360M SMR the rhetoric was not like this.
4.3) Transparency for the Growth committee
“Spending decisions that fall under NDA may be summarized under general terminology”
This is vague and should not “may be” but at least the minimum requirement for transparency where NDA funds have gone. There are many ways to give information without breaking NDAs.