|
|
|
|
|
|
by soared
1181 days ago
|
|
|
My point is more so that if someone asked for a couple million (or potentially unlimited millions), you’d expect clear breakouts of how it would be spent, how they’d prove to be spending it on the states purpose, what law firm they’re using, what needs to occur for another million to be pulled out, what needs to occur for millions to stop being pulled out, how often they’ll report out on what they’re spending it on, how they’ll be held accountable, etc. |
|
|
Sometimes when you write these things it's hard to nail down everthing and you can miss a scope creep because you assume honesty on your end for example. I think that it shows a healthy governance process if people can give their interpretation and desires and the proposer updates their proposal accordingly.
The fact he is unwilling to share more data in public about the case is problematic though, I get the issues with talking about an open case. One possibility would be to get the community to vote to elect a comittee of contributors who have demonstrated their care for the DAO to review the documents under NDA, same for reviewing the fees and they would vote on the relevance of such a fund (and its extent) to protect the DAO or not instead.