- Edited
Archimedes an interesting set of perspectives!
Thus far the DAO has spent ~$11,000,000 since it was launched - with budget approvals on a six monthly basis all that have been required for accountability. This level of spending / unaccountability cannot continue, and although internal cuts are hard, that ~$200k all in spend we now find ourselves at feels much more reasonable and where it should be.
The proposal clearly continues to force efficiency within the CM team, whilst also cutting off the proverbial lifeline -a step required to force it to become viable within 18 months.
By all accounts this feels like an efficient and responsible next step for the project. Far more so than continuing to try and navigate the internal challenges, and expose dev work to uncertainty due to the difference in opinion on funding the project is facing internally.
Re PMF and market thesis -- your POV is one we have discussed at length and as you well know I disagree with it. I do however think there is a general misunderstanding on the USP of Carbonmark: scalable, automatable solutions will be an important component of the next iteration of the VCM. Carbonmark would do well to position itself at the front of the pack as the market begins to turn (and we need more work to achieve that). In any case, we can hypothesize on this forever and likely won't align at this point; more importantly is how do we force an outcome to either stick to our guns and try it, or go home, instead of stuttering along in a setup that doesn't work.
Therefore for a number of reasons (arbitrary and counterproductive requirements for productivity being phased in; maturity and needs of Carbonmark; needs of KlimaDAO; challenges we will likely face with conditioning funding; issues that tranches funding continually pose for the project) I am personally in favour of the proposal as it stands.
I look forward to more comments from the team and community as we chart out next, and critical steps, in the DCM.