First, @Adri appreciate the time taken with the response and the amendments made to the proposals. Additionally, I appreciate there was much more explanation provided, including callbacks to previous discussions that have been discussed by the community in this forum.
Measure 1 - I have previously argued that the current reward rate was unbalanced and would need to be addressed, so the spirit of this measure is one I agree with. Having said that, a couple of thoughts:
A. After the next two periods, I would like to see us make a final consideration of how to distribute rewards so we are not hashing this out every 3-6 months (I’m sure you folks are tired of it as well). I would propose setting governance rewards (vanilla hold in wallet/vote) to a percentage rate per amount committed, i.e. an interest/dividend rate that is unchanged by wallets dropping out. As an example, if we set it for 2% quarterly, a wallet with 10k ALGO committed will get 200 Algos, regardless of total commitment, or lost commitments in the community. We can do the same for Defi and others such as node operators, xGov etc. An annual reconsideration could be had if necessary. I’d even be open to pegging it to a rate and having it adjust automatically.
B. I am still disappointed there is no status quo vote option. I understand the reasoning given that the community has been all over the board in its views here and this is a compromise of those views, but the Foundation is still making a decision outside of the community. While I agree with it here, I fear the precedent setting it could provide later. I would rather have seen the status quo, and the foundation/community discuss/inform/persuade a choice to reduce rewards. If its an issue of whale wallets, then we probably have another problem at large that we are not addressing that will show later on.
Measure 2/3 - I think once your draft is out we’ll have a better feel for this. In principal, my opinion is unchanged that this is worthwhile. I agree with starting out small as well so we can work out kinks. Look forward to seeing the planned implementation soon.
Measure 4/5 - Again I think this was a much better explanation of what the goal is with the “NFT” measure. A few thoughts on the benefits listed:
A. On this forum to display, it may just be me but I’m still just struggling a little with why the Foundation needs to buy NFTs to do this? I would think you could just as easily show off projects/creators at events without having to buy the NFT. Additionally, will you be reselling these? If so how will the proceeds be handled?
B. I’m on board tentatively with some of these such as grants/commissions.
C. Onboarding new users is probably the one that I think brings the most value. I would agree that any campaign that enhances visibility/assists in bringing in new folks is valuable. While this is outside the realm of NFT’s, I would ask then we also consider similar campaigns of onboarding such as teaching folks how to run nodes for example.
D. Similar to B above there is some potential here.
Overall, I still am hesitant in the fact that it’s just hard to see how NFT’s really are adding value at this stage. As an example, governors on the Perra wallet are getting NFT’s quarterly for governance, but is this really doing anything? In the end though, a valid point is made that the commitment size is small, so I’ll vote Yes to establishing the fund. If it goes poorly it can be terminated later (and vice versa if it goes well we can increase the funds).