Thank you so much, @AK_HoG, for this more comprehensive breakdown and the clarification of the budget structure. I personally view this transition to operational independence as a critical step in maturing the HoS, and I also believe that this budget is fairly conservative in terms of spend and reasoning.
I’d like to highlight a few points that I believe require further refinement to ensure this proposal meets the high standards that the HoS continues to build:
1. Treasury De-risking & Unit Economics: Following up on @fiatisabubble’s point; since our expenses (Legal, IT, Compliance) are USD-denominated but our treasury is NEAR heavy, we face significant currency mismatch risk - if the price of NEAR drops, it could have a negative effect on upcoming but allocated expenses. I would like to suggest a commitment to diversifying a specific percentage of this budget into stables upon approval to lock in the 9 month runway. This protects the HoS from being forced to sell NEAR during high volatility to cover fixed costs.
2. Enhancing KPIs for Utility over Hype: The current KPIs focus on execution reliability (i.e. the plumbing). I suggest adding a Value-Add KPI. For example: "Reduction in average proposal-to-execution lead time’" or "Percentage of co-funded projects meeting their own stated milestones.'" If HoS is putting 15% skin in the game, we should be tracking the ROI of that 15% specifically.
3. Addressing the Bureaucracy Concern: I’d like to see a commitment that by the end of Season #1, we evaluate service provider competition for the IT & Infrastructure and Data & Insights categories to ensure the HoS is getting the best market rates. It’s common in budget reviews to determine if the former budget spend is still required, and with changing markets, SP’s offerings could look very different, or our needs may change.
Overall, the ‘Skin in the Game’ mechanism is a really good addition to the budget, and a pioneering move for HoS accountability; I am also very supportive of this direction provided these volatility and oversight concerns that I mentioned are addressed. Having the ‘Skin in the Game’ mechnanism also allows for the HoS to demostrate that we are taking accountability and responsibility for the treasury, which is necessary for our long-term growth.