Hey @Walshy, just want to jump in here and back @links—links has been very supportive in DAO channels on Discord regarding this initiative. Malicious intent is definitely not something I read here, and given his general support of the initiative, it’s something that shouldn’t be read into his responses.
I do find it concerning that you have jumped to this conclusion in both his response and my first response. Neither of us have suggested this is the case, but rather have concerns regarding the initiative and are not willing to simply sign off on it. And that’s okay—dissent is just as important to the process of governance as consensus is.
From my view, I see someone (you) who wants to bring something of value to bDAO by way of these AMAs, and someone (links) who is taking their role as a Grants Committee member seriously and working to keep the best interests of bDAO in mind. These are not misaligned; however there is miscommunication here. I, for one, would like to see links’ concerns addressed, as this is pertinent to how many in our community will view the funding of this initiative.
The majority may be in your favor, but as in so many cases—and I think you’ll agree—the majority isn’t always right. And links point about the bulk of the yes votes happening before community members voiced their concerns has merit.
In the end, I think we all want bDAO to win. If this is, indeed, the case, then really, the concerns that are brought up here are naught more than details. Links has shared his own enthusiasm around this initiative, but is still being responsible in his role as steward of DAO funds, and this ought to be recognized and celebrated. While it doesn’t make things easier, it does bring more value to the process, and more faith in your initiative should it be funded.