Thanks again @Sasha for sharing your thoughts! 
Those 11-13% numbers from other DAOs are are indeed more aligned with the target cost I’ve pointed to as target numbers, which this proposal in its current form misses by 2-3x
We have presented a broad range of data points across multiple grant programs to provide a comprehensive view of spending patterns across different ecosystems. Our goal is to provide the ApeCoin community members with all the relevant data points to help them make an informed decision on our proposal and the associated polls.
We acknowledge that the committee compensation and product fee (cost) constituting 11% - 13% of the total proposed grants program budget ($500k/quarter) will lead to reduction in cost. However, if revised to 11% - 13% of the total proposed grants program budget, the current proposed cost will be 1.1x - 1.3x of the revised cost.
We want to reemphasize that sourcing, reviewing, funding, marketing, tracking and nurturing proposals for each domain demands significant expertise and time commitment from domain allocators and they should be fairly and competitively compensated for their efforts. Additionally, the proposed budget represents the maximum amount needed to ensure the success of the grants program and to avoid the need for frequent community ratification for budgets for the proposed ApeCoin DAO Grants Program.
We would love to receive more inputs from the community members and welcome them to participate in the polls to help us finalise the domain, grants program spend and proceed towards finalizing the domain allocators accordingly 
I’d just like to add that I think it’s not fair to compare a proposal budget to the total size of the treasury and such comparisons should be categorically avoided. I could say that my own proposal is just 0.015% so quick, guys, just click yes! But that is a terrible way to allocate funds. All proposals should stand on their own and judged in isolation. It’s never about how much money it needs; it’s always about how that money will be used.
Really appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this ! We completely agree that proposals should be judged based on how the allocated funds will be used and their potential impact, rather than the proportion of the total treasury they represent 
Our mention of the proposed spend as a percentage of the total treasury was meant to provide context and transparency, and not as a justification for the spend. We appreciate ApeCoin DAO for being open to making an independent decision regarding the budget and the cost. This demonstrates the strength and commitment of the community to evaluate proposals based on their merit.
While we acknowledge that comparing a proposal budget to the total size of the treasury may not be the sole or most effective method of evaluating or determining budget allocations, we believe that it can help the ApeCoin DAO community to understand the size of the allocation and build mental models around it. A similar framework can also be seen used by the Ape foundation transparency report and the Apecoin Ecosystem Fund Allocation proposal as mentioned below.
