0x2767edfe…3938sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,127,526·view on Etherscan
@0x39a7...aBc0
I think a line in the sand needs to be drawn here for the dao to move forward. The lack of communication and transparency is unsatisfactory imo, especially with what has been delivered and deemed acceptable thus far. It has hindered other community members' proposals and is a huge amount of money with where we are at as a dao today.
It has been:
* 468 days since this proposal was executed
* 179 days since the last update
* 100 days since Drew participated in governance.
* 12 days since requested for an update.
Now, I know this isn't an easy or fun topic to talk about, but what precedent are we setting here? The dao voted for Prop 450, a particular cafe in Marina Del Rey, Los Angeles. That's not what we are getting. I don't agree that because this venture fell through, the proposers now have the right to select a new one of their choice without consulting the dao or 'pivot' using the funds for pop-ups at their discretion.
As a community member, I propose an on-chain discussion about where, as a dao, what direction we think this prop should take from here. Personally I feel it is more than reasonable to ask the proposers to send remaining funds back. If and when they find a new location, the DAO can vote either for or against.
That is how is experiment is designed to work.
>
>
> Any update on this? If not, please return fund to treasury.
>