@Sasha
Late to the party. I just want to say that, coming from a software development & publishing background, I can immediately see a million reasons why this AIP idea - if adopted - would be discouraging for projects and end up being a time-consuming sink for the Working Group tasked with overseeing a project that falls into this category.
For one thing, grants are usually free money - with zero oversight. That’s the whole point. That’s just the way it is.
So, the question is this: Is the DAO issuing grants or is it issuing grants with oversight? There’s a very thin line between the two.
This issue comes up in crowd-funding as well; and outside of manufacturing ventures, even the crowdfunding platforms (even those with Reg-C avenues) don’t go the route of oversight. In some instances where manufacturing is concerned, you first need a working prototype or request funding tranches to build it, before getting the full funding.
And in game dev, publishers and distributors tend to issue funding based on pre-determined and agreed upon milestones. Each milestone - once achieved - comes with a payment. The first payment is usually 50% or more of the full ask; with subsequent payments being based on the amount of work required for each milestone.
I believe that having the DAO perform project oversight isn’t as easy as it sounds. It requires an extensive on-going knowledge of the project itself, as well as consistent interface with the team. Who is going to do that? And what happens when you have several projects in the works? Trust me when I say that it’s a major undertaking.
Others in the thread have already highlighted other Red flags with this idea, as well as the caveats.
The easiest path forward is for the DAO to decide whether or not its in the business of issuing grants or in the business of overseeing teams who have been issued grants. I believe that if an AIP passes, that should be the end of the DAOs involvement in that project. That’s how grants tend to work.
Either that, or if this passes, put it under the oversight of a specific working group (e.g. Metaverse Working Group would have oversight on Metaverse realated projects such as games etc) depending on the project. And even that has a massive risk because 1) there are few stewards in the working groups e.g. MWG only has three, and 2) the appointed stewards may not even have the experience to oversee the making of a ham & cheese sandwich, let alone an entire software project.