Just want to clear some inconsistencies I can see in the discussions:
Lemniscap did not manage to increase our delegation by 200K EUL.
Those are our tokens. We have used our tokens to vote strategically on gauges (ex: voting for the cbETH gauge on the launch of cbETH market to jumpstart liquidity for that market) and we would continue to do so in future (EUL tokens used to vote on Gauges are not assigned for voting power). There are no magic tokens. We have been participating in governance votes for a while and it would be good to check who are the first time voters voting NO and maybe also have that as part of the analysis.
Being the lead investor in Questbook they have an agenda to push.
A little more research would point out Lemniscap led and co-lead both Euler and Encode rounds as well. And I think we can all agree, one would not be a very good investors if we did not believe in the products and team one invest in.
I think framing this vote as an Encode vs Questbook vote does not help anyone, especially Euler. As Euler members, the only concern should have been benefit to Euler. To us, it is clear that processing grants through a onchain orchestration tool like Questbook is in the right direction.
We also don’t see Questbook and Encode as competitors. Questbook does not run grants - just provide onchain tooling. Encode runs grants and are an allocator who do the work on ground. Building these kind of zero sum frameworks would mean saying a frontend on a gnosis safe the treasury uses is a competitor to Encode, which is not the case. Questbook’s onchain stack has been selected to run grants for a number of protocols before their proposal for Euler (and in which Lemniscap has no votes) which should speak about the strength of their offering.
I find this accusation that this proposal has been singly rushed through a bit wild. It would be good to compares apple for apples. This proposal has had more discussion (which is to the benefit of the dao) then most other grants proposal that have previously passed.
Below are some picks:
Grant Proposal 7: 10 replies on the proposal. Passed with total Yes/No vote of 105K EUL and 3K EUL vote differential. 15,000$ given. Third (or second?) grant for the same team.
eGP4: Messari Q4 (bi-annual) Report: 15 replies on the proposal. Passed with 44K EUL vote with 6K EUL vote differential. 50,000$ given.
If this proposal ends up engaging more first time voters into participating in Euler governance, that is a positive for the DAO.
Lastly, this proposal is for a quarter and the dao will have the option to assess and decide if this grants framework has delivered result, which i hope is what everyone wants to see and we as a dao should put our best efforts to try and make it a success.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.