Dionysus Thanks for your response.
For a retail investor, or non-contributing DAO member, it's hard to understand the inner workings for these decisions. From the optimistic viewpoint, this looks like a good opportunity to invest in order to grow the on-chain VCM, enable supply and demand and thus to ensure the long-term investment return for Klima holders. Also, I totally agree that being active is the right way, in contrast to just sit and wait for the surrounding on-chain VCM environment to emerge. From the pessimistic viewpoint, however, this may just as well be a way to fund on-chain projects with easy money from the Klima treasury, aka the Klima investors, without making the true relationship between the involved players, aka Klima core team, advisors and other DAO teams transparent. The danger in that pessimistic scenario would be that the Klima treasury, or Klima investor money, would just be drained in the long term without building something that is truely successful as a VCM and yields no return to Klima investors. While I don't subscribe to the pessimistic view, I think it's indeed important to make the real benefit for Klima investors as transparent as possible. Even if it's just to avoid the possibility that such accusations could emerge from other parties in the wider ReFi space.
Having said this, an alternative way to fund the projects, or more precisely, the liquidity pools, would be via LPB auctions, as was done with Klima, where different assets like USDC, Klima, BCT, NCT could be used. This way, every investor could decide directly for themselves instead of being part of a vote. Of course, as a downside, this may generate lower funding than using the Klima treasury. But has this alternative approach been considered and do you see pros and cons therein?