Worrying trend of overlapping funding in recent spend requests

I just wanted to say that recently I’ve seen a trend where various community members are putting forward proposals that have already been funded in some way or form under other proposals. This is particularly apparent in non-technical spend proposals.

Sometimes this overlap is being suggested as a means to justify the spending amount of the proposal and give additional value, other it feels because some community member thinks they will do a better job than the other party that was already funded.

Additionally it feels like, at least at the forum level, there isn’t much participation lately and much less scrutinity on the spending than just a few months ago. It feels like we keep jumping from extremes to not wanting to fund anything to everything. Resulting in some questionable recent spending in some cases.

I’d like to urge all validators to participate more actively on governance discussion, and be more wary going onwards of these issues. Moreover I think we should go through a cooldown period and waiting for a more consistent price floor before funding any more community proposals (not including the current proposals that are up for vote).

I think everything being funded is valid and trust the individuals doing so to put in a lot of hard work. All of them have demonstrated the capacity to do so already. The “overlap” is exaggerated and only exists in my mind due to the nature of trying too hard to fit roles into boxes. Building this network to what it’s capable of requires expenditure on the most important asset there is: human capital.

2 Likes