Thanks @waqar for raising this.
There is a lot of work being done now inside the ICF to ensure that the community has the context it needs to have constructive conversations about topics like this. In the coming week, we are hoping to release our 2022 annual financial report.
As per the delegations, when they are made, we will maintain an updated list that shows who the ICF delegates to and what amounts. The purpose of the delegation program is to increase the health of the network by incentivizing contributions from validators and improving the distribution of stake of the network.
As this relates to your question, keeping in mind the purpose of the delegation program and its scope can provide a good jumping-off point for this conversation for community pool spends on a case by case basis. It’s usually good practice to not double-dip, or receive funding twice for the same scope of work though delegations do differ from other forms of compensation, and that difference may be significant in some circumstances.
Additionally, when the annual report is issued, it should provide clarity about funding as it relates to our operations. However, we are no longer the only funding body for the Hub and the Interchain, and we hope this trend continues to address more localized needs in a sustainable way.
As such, it would be beneficial for all ratified or significant funding providers in the ecosystem to follow a similar covenant or social protocol in regards to providing this information. This protocol should be negotiated between a coalition of funding bodies and take into account the legal circumstances of each case while still seeking to provide relevant context to ensure that healthy and informed governance is possible.