I agree with this point. One of the main issues I have with the accelerator DAO, is I’m not sure what part of Cosmos it intends to accelerate. I prefer to have a stated objective. I prefer that these ATOMs go directly towards ICS exclusively (albeit, I do wish it was a smaller amount), and new initiatives with different governance models can come up and provide grant funding for different parts of the Hub. An example of what I’d like stated, for this grant program:
-
We are to use this 588,000 ATOMs to fund projects that are building or intend to build on Interchain Security, and use our social influence to try to gain more meaningful consumer chains. (This can also give ICS chains a central point of funding, and in turn, this grant program can keep these chains on track in the building phase, and would also be able to lock chains into ICS better than what we currently have now. Not that this program becomes a central point of ICS, but rather a mediator, making it easier for chains that wish to become a Hub consumer chain.)
-
We will use these 588,000 ATOMs to help fund research initiatives to make ICS more effective and efficient, giving forward momentum to bring V2/V3 of ICS to the forefront of the Hub. (A central point of research funding for ICS, as Informal has been the main contributor to ICS, it may be good if this grants program, intended to help fund and connect Infomal with new teams, looking to help build out ICS into its V2/V3 implementations.)
If these were the sole, stated goals of this grant program, I would vote yes for the current 588,000 ATOMs, as I believe ICS alone is worth that type of money being poured in to benefit the Hub. So long as this program’s sole intent was to build the hell out of ICS and ICS research. I don’t want to fund an “anything goes” fund though, I need specific goals and mandates.