I want to express my thoughts on this proposal and provide my rationale for supporting it, while also articulating some concerns about the potential precedent it might set. To be clear, I fully support this proposal, albeit with cautious optimism. My reservations are not related to the integrity of those involved but rather the broader implications this may have for the future.
First, I would like to acknowledge the immense amount of effort required to develop, deploy, and maintain the tool in question. The process of parsing, extracting, processing, automating, fine-tuning, collecting, analyzing, representing, and reporting on data is no small feat. Each iteration has refined the model further, supported by countless hours of planning, brainstorming architectural solutions, and executing both backend and frontend development. Beyond this, the work also includes coordinating the use of the tool for multimillion-dollar voting events, addressing concerns from skeptics, and collecting and integrating feedback to enhance the model.
The scope of work spans multiple domains, including data analytics, AI modeling, programming, user interface and experience design, and thorough documentation. This does not even begin to factor in the countless hours saved by leveraging this tool during the Catalyst review process, which would have otherwise required significantly more time and resources from reviewers or the recruitment of additional personnel.
From my career as a QA automation engineer & product manager my understanding of software development lifecycles and the intricacies of model fine-tuning lead me to believe that the amount requested in this proposal is, in my view, entirely reasonable when weighed against the value provided.
It is also important to address potential misconceptions. To an outside observer, it might appear that this is simply the result of a small group working together to quickly develop a tool, utilize it sporadically, and then “extract” funds from the treasury. This could not be further from the truth. This tool has been actively used since Fund 10 without compensation and has supported voting processes in Funds 10, 11, 12, and 13, with the potential for continued use in the future. The work undertaken has been substantial and sustained.
That being said, I believe this proposal should serve as a reminder that accessing treasury funds is not an easy process. For newcomers to the DAO or those unfamiliar with its mechanisms, it is critical to understand that earning such support requires building a strong reputation, delivering a proven product or demonstrable value, and being prepared to rigorously justify and defend one’s contributions.
Regarding the future of Catalyst rounds, whether they continue or not, I believe this tooling could be adapted for broader governance applications, such as replacing the current forum-based voting system. For example, it could be utilized for informal governance steps that require validation of wallet holdings or token ownership, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability in governance processes. (If adapted to this purpose it would leave someone like myself who does not own any MIN with no say, which makes sense)
Finally, I want to express my confidence in Elder, Linda, and Mark based on their prior contributions to the protocol. Their dedication and expertise have been instrumental, and I trust they will continue to provide valuable insights to benefit the protocol moving forward.
In conclusion, I support this proposal and believe the requested funding is justified. However, I caution all members of the DAO to view this as an example of the level of work and accountability required to successfully secure treasury funding (even then with significant pushback). I hope this message provides clarity and helps build understanding of the significant contributions behind this proposal.