0xc2d4f2d8…e413sent to0x86030dbb…3c05·#16,083,887·view on Etherscan
Seneca:
While I like the enthusiasm and appreciate the team's effort to put this forth, the proposed outcomes feel vague. If the end goal is to get builders funded - I'd much rather see the team pursue a small amount of funding to run their own grants program. This way, it is much easier to measure success while also allowing the team to find/consult with builders.
9999:
The team is passionate and well placed to execute on this idea. I think it’s reasonable to get funds to test out a consultancy/incubator on a small scale, but I dislike subsidizing this entirely for 3 months when there’s an obvious business model.
In general, I am for the consultancy model and believe it can bring qualified builders to the DAO. To that end, the market has the ability to signal whether the PropBox idea/team/approach works and funding to the extent requested would distort this process.
In addition to reducing the timeline and funding amount, I would recommend voting for this proposal if it had target metrics: 1 month, interface with 10-15 builders, target 1-2 amazing on-chain proposal, include a “finders fee” to subsidize the funding gap.
devcarrot:
I agree with the other Nounders that there should be a market for this type of advising that takes the form of a "finders fee" or "tip". I would like to see this proposal changed to either include more discrete objectives or, as Aubtoshi mentioned, expanded to be a source of earlier funding. During the Agora debate it was brought up that a place for builders and proposal authors are able to gain some clout, PropBox could be a way to incubate those with potential and build better proposals along the way.