virtuallykeith

I'm abstaining. This is a poll of SPO support, and DRep votes don't count toward it. I'm open to raising k, but I think it should follow the minPoolCost reduction rather than run alongside it.

Block rewards have dropped a long way since Shelley, so the fixed pool fee now eats a large share of rewards for small pools. That pushes delegators toward bigger pools and works against decentralisation.

The 2023 cut from 340 to 170 ada didn't cause the race to the bottom some people feared. Most pools kept their fees where they were, and smaller pools used the room to compete. IO Research has also revised its view and now sees a high floor as helping large operators more than it protects the network.

This proposal went through the proper process: public discussion as PCP-006, TSC endorsement and the required notice period. Its effect on the treasury is small.

I note that a later reversal could not force existing pools back up to a higher fee, so this change is harder to undo than it looks. I'm comfortable with that given the evidence. I see this as an interim step, and I'd like to see work continue on a proportional fee (CIP-23) as the longer-term fix.

An audited contract library and solid reference implementations would be a real gain for Cardano builders. OpenZeppelin has the track record to deliver them. My No vote is about how this proposal is put together, not about whether the work is worth doing.

The budget is pegged to ada at US$0.16, but the price has moved well above that since submission. As written, the full delivery amount is converted to stablecoin when the contract is signed. At current prices that would be far more than the US$1.83M budget. I couldn't see a clear statement of what happens to the surplus. I'm not comfortable approving a treasury withdrawal where the amount leaving the treasury doesn't match the stated need.

I also have smaller concerns. The proposal came forward outside the normal budget process, and Intersect is administering it without endorsing it. The smart contract language is still to be decided. 20% is paid upfront before any delivery, and the milestone dates are already out of step with when work could realistically start.

If OpenZeppelin resubmits with the amount re-priced closer to current ada, a clear commitment to return any surplus, and the language question settled, I expect I'd support it.

Decentralization doesn’t mean unlimited spending. It means rules that we choose. A cap aligned with historical inflows encourages responsible governance while still leaving the decisions in the hands of voters.

Thinking in particular about the future-proofing and the dev experience long term.
The community should obviously watch this very closely to ensure the substantial funds being asked for are used to provide direct benefit, but at this stage of the governance system it makes sense that larger scale projects might be approved from those already well experienced and established in developing the architecture. If they don't live up to what they promise then the community doesn't need to continue to fund projects from the big players. However, I believe the long term resilience and decentralization is important, and particularly the improving of the dev experience.