Very nice initiative and a good step forward!
Thinking of some dangers, how is the proposed setting robust against motivated attacks? Some services providing accounts to be associated with the Gitcoin Passport provide very low-quality verification of users (Discord, Google, Twitter, etc.), making Sybil resistance relatively limited. In that, I agree with jengajojo .
With 800 voting wallets (last Klima DAO's votes), is the (currently) active community broad and big enough to defer such an attack? A quick calculation (with many assumptions) tells me that the vote of a community could be outweighed by a few (tens of) thousand $ in some extreme cases (massive exploit of associated accounts).
Of course, since DAO votes happen off-chain, the likelihood of really bad outcomes is limited (barriers in the implementation) and I don’t see it likely that attackers would be members of the core team/large token holders (who have power now and showed no dishonesty) - so the risk is rather reputational (what will happen when the proposal is somewhere in the “grey zone” - not apparently dishonest but something not aligned with the Klima DAO's vision?). Perhaps it would be good to have also formal (not only informal) safeguards and not just a check-up after 6 months? jengajojo has nice suggestions, I believe.