It’s a valid point you are making. We have in-fact in previous xgov session proposed and passed a single proposal that included two projects collabs within. It passed without issues, however we asked for 30k algo in total for it. We have identified two issues with this approach:
1- we cannot control how fast or when the other party is available to do the collab promotion
2- we asked for too little and were for the sake of making it happen paying for the difference
Splitting it in two proposals, we believe there is a higher possibility of each individual proposal passing, and thus ensuring at least one collab nft happening if one of the two doesn’t pass.
It also allows us to stick to the timeline and deliverables, which is actually a “hard” date in the contract for grant, so we can’t really afford to miss it, any mishap on one of the projects (e.g. for some reason it collab doesn’t happen) will not invalidate funds for the other.
I hope this makes sense, it can be perceived as min-maxing, but as there is a 3rd party(collab project) involved in each of these proposals we feel its safer and more sane to propose it like this.
If it was just to make the nfts and integrate with game(which is entirely in our domain), we would keep it as single proposal regardless of lower chances of passing.