First and foremost, I am not against investing DHF money. It must be an investment, though – we need to approach it as stakeholders in a company called Hive. We should require certain standards from all DHF projects, regardless of how reputable the Hivean who submitted them is.

I appreciate all you’ve done for us so far. What I miss in the proposal (and I am aware it is supposed to be retroactive compensation, which, on the other hand, seems a bit oddly phrased) are KPIs, deadlines, and clear deliverables. The goal isn't to penalize you if some of them aren't achieved, as that could easily be due to externalities beyond your control. Still, being more detailed, defining clear objectives, and perhaps asking for twice as much over a much longer period (say 15 months) with checkpoints and deadlines allowing the community to track the progress and potentially reconsider support, would likely be more appreciated. If I saw that and found the goals realistic, I’d happily support the proposal.