Like @0xBaer said about converting . I think we can say we should consider lower bounds for treasury fund allocation during the trials to see if the system can handle it properly or not .
So , I think we only have 3 scenarios here
a. if ‘more than 50’ wins then allocate treasury funds between 50% - 80% as the ‘more than 80’ option is lost
b. if ‘more than 80’ wins we should definitely allocate more than 80% funds from treasury
c. if ‘Tie’ then use use 50% Treasury but Allocation will always be open to go beyond 80% too if we have better protocols in hand
So ,
Lower bound is 50% Allocation which is viable in both case a & c , unless b wins
I think @Genkai.Shogun Already decided that in Stage - 1 Detailed Polls , Sentiment of members seem to Above 50% allocation as min.
I don’t know exactly how @Genkai.Shogun formed it but it doesn’t look like a Traditional Hierarchy
having a ‘Top - Down’ Managment style .
To me it looked like a Flatarchy or a Holocratic Organization
Has there been any news on this proposal? What are the next steps to move this forward? @Roxan , @Genkai.Shogun. the treasury continues to accrue funds and I think we need to make some changes to attract a bit of positive news. I know we are in the middle of a bear market, but it is cyclical, as we all know. And we need to think about attracting more stakers and having a larger community. It’s hard though, when every other day some token implodes and projects are dying.
No active treasury management means leaving a lot on the table.
If we can have all the core contributors ( request someone to take the initiative) on this thread, we can have a chance to know their mind about treasury management as well as the proposed solutions in here, and if this is going for vote, in particular.