Awesome post 
My only hot take 
IMO there are very, very, few cases where this should be the case. Proposers shouldn’t really be undertaking work, distributing NEAR to third parties, or promising payment for tasks without the proposal being approved by the Council(s).
This doesn’t occur if there’s USD denominated funding across the board.
Regardless of whether the funding request is denominated in USD or not, the payout is still in NEAR. All the above holds true, however you get the added benefit of:
-
A more responsible distribution of NEAR
-
Far less volatility (downside and upside)
Take this scenario for example:
Proposer x requests funding of 100 N ($1,000) for y project.
In between proposing and the funding payout that 100 N is now valued at $500 and they’re unable to complete the proposed work (OR it’s not worth their time anymore)
What’s the solution here? Increase the amount of NEAR? If that’s the case then the inverse should also be true.
Expressed much of this here
I get that everyone is bullish on NEAR, but as a Council member, and a member of NEAR Core, I think it’s essential the responsible distribution of NEAR takes pride of place when considering proposal payouts.