I generally agree with @Amplify response above with two-exceptions.
First, major capital deployments should be met with disclosure on safe-guard processes. Worst case scenario: massive $ape hack dumped on market, nothing gets built. We should think about a bright-line test in terms of $request.
Second, for proposals that earn revenue on behalf of the DAO, we should require disclosure on safe-guards, wallet access, specific processes of remittance, and assurances of limited risk until remitted. These risks came up here, lack transparency, and tail on my comments above re: self-assessment. Further, in this scenario, a perpetual one-month float is effectively a permanent cost to the DAO but escapes the current framework tied to requests for funds. For BAYC sales last month, the float is $85k (cryptoslam x 0.25%). We should think about bright-line tests for payment terms that mandate treatment as request for funds in addition to disclosure thresholds. For example, n15.
Going forward, coupling bright-line tests with disclosure requirements is a baseline of transparency we should strive for.