Rebuilding Trust
There is a clear set of arguments here pleading the case to be made whole. The Simply Staking team is only asking for the initial half of the committed funds that was supposed to be sent prior to the start of the project. It has been a year and the Entrypoint app is nearing completion, but no funds in sight. The funding mechanism in the past via a loosely governed committee should be rectified to help rebuild trust in builders seeking for partial funding to help launch dApps bringing utility to the ecosystem, potentially targeting institutional investors.
The rectification is set as Prop #851 and is already up for voting. We are voting YES on this proposal.
Product Market Fit
For those who haven’t tried it out yet, the idea for the Entrypoint app conceptualizes what TradFi has done for decades. The initial product is quite well done, to realize the vision of a perceived indexed-based fund. The road to mainnet is still underway because there’s further investments necessary to commit to liquidity through business development, finalization of development for audit-readiness and other operational diligence such as licensing and compliance, which are all signs of maturity for the development of the app by the Simply Staking team.
Root Cause and Moving Forward
I’m curious to hear from the previous committee about the reasonings behind how this played out through the year, so we can root cause the inaction from a previously agreed upon funding, for a case of potential conflict of interest, the lack of transitions, or something else… also whether the previous committee will now vote to approve this rectification in Prop #851 since the funds were returned to the community pool.
Previous committee members below, quoted from this post Proposal 72 funding gone wrong - A governance scheme with holes: