{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I vote YES on this reworked and improved GovToools proposal. \n\nThe original proposal for Cardano GovTool that was rejected by DReps was worth ₳2 million. I voted NO on that previous one (earlier this year) due to concerns about the size of the budget request and a perceived (from my point of view) lack of agility and responsiveness of GovTool to the concerns from DReps who were one of the end user categories of their tool. \n\nMy key concern was mainly the inability to vote in a smooth and orderly and uninterrupted fashion over GovTools. The user experience was not there. However, my NO vote was mostly a message - that they need to go back to the drawing board. \n\nI originally voted NO mainly because of: (a) perceived high cost vs what we were using (b) lack of engagement by GovTools team to proactively prevent voting disruptions on their platform. \nMy impression is that the GovTool team rolled with the punches and managed to turn what was a major loss into a much better proposal and improved approach to how GovTools should be developed (with community feedback). \n\nEqually importantly for me - the new budget info action adds up to ₳1.15 million. The Tier 3 (most robust) version encompassing full active dev & maintenance (for ₳1.15 M) delivers the same five-pillar (Proposals Pillar, Delegation Pillar, Voting Pillar, Outcomes Pillar and Budget Discussions Pillar) coverage for 43 % less ADA. Savings mainly come from slimmer FTE assumptions and sharing ops overhead.\n\nThey regrouped, refocused, held Twitter spaces and consultations with the community. They now submitted this budget info action - separately from Intersect. Although the details of the administration process are aligned with the structure provided by Intersect as administrator. \n\nThe new proposal was drafted with users after four weeks of feedback. It also dedicates funds to grassroots contributors and companion tools. This is an important concession and a strong match for Cardano’s decentralized and participatory ethos. This should remain part of GovTools philosophy as we progress. \nI welcome the team's idea to introduce a tiered structure and streamed contracts - allowing DReps to dial spending up or down and stop payment quickly if milestones slip.\n\nThe explicit grants for projects like 1694.io or Tempo.vote and cardanobudget.com also are encouraging for creating \"an ecosystem of complementary front-ends\" rather than a single monopoly tool.\n\nAs regards the constitutionality of this proposal, I defer the ultimate judgement of this aspect of this proposal to the Interim Constitutional Committee.  \n"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}