Why not contemplate following the idea of collective grants from Optimism, based on missions and collective intents? It seems a very effective idea to incentivise decentralised but targeted and strategic development, with tangible impact measurements. I also like the idea of “alliances”, allowing for flexible working groups. No matter if proactive or retroactive, I think we need a framework that better streamlines intent into actual productivity. The idea of collective intent and missions fits very well with retroactive funding, but still allows for specific, targeted proactive funding where necessary. I think something like a global community roadmap, that is at the same time targeted but flexible enough to accommodate different modes of operation is quite useful in fostering community culture on Algorand by directing effort that has, to date, been scattered all over the place.
I am not much of a fan of the crowdfunding idea on second thought. I would prefer proactive funding to fall under specific “intents”. At the same time, I think proactive funding should be specialised in nature, allowing for time and proper due diligence to reduce counterparty risk, also utilising for example an experts/developer council. I think we learned that getting drowned in naked proposals is not a good idea. Like above, I think it would be a good idea to streamline proactive grants. Honestly, I think most projects are well served with the retroactive method. Proactive funds in my mind should be allocated for very strategic and specialised purposes and not comprise the main method of funding.
Also, while I share your enthusiasm, I would prefer for us to take our time in this discussion and not rush to vote about it prematurely.