Michele_Harmonic

The proposed changes should be proposed under Plutus V4 instead of as an extension of Plutus V3, according to CIP-35 (https://cips.cardano.org/cip/CIP-0035), as they include not backwards-compatible changes.

Additionally, even if all the changes were backwards compatible, extending the set of builtins tends to break all downstream tx builders (classic PPViewHashesDontMatch). This practice should be abolished in favour of upgrading the Plutus version when new builtins are added.

good proposal, would recommend

good proposal, would recommend

good proposal, would recommend

good proposal, would recommend

Don't mind me, I'm just collecting my voting reward at https://voting-rewards.harmoniclabs.tech/

Dingo is an incredible value added for the long term reliability of the network.

The choice of independent submission is more than appropriate for a properly decentralized (and not subject to third parties) decision making.

I'm changing my vote from NO to ABSTAIN.

This is done as a vote of confidence in the goodwill of the committee members, trusting that they recognise the importance of their role and will act in the best interest of the protocol rather than their personal interests.

Additionally, this decision was also influenced by the announcement by CF of their plan to invest an 8-figure amount in the same market.

With this in mind, the context changes considerably,

In the event this proposal does not pass, but CF still invests a considerable amount in the small market, the problem that I was trying to avoid by voting NO would still persist.

In this context, the two entities should be able to balance each other in the event of poor decisions. With this in mind, a YES vote is on the table, but I would need to receive some feedback from the people I'm representing before such a change.