{"data":{"proposalCid":"QmSrhguNi2uSULvcNrbgApUoK6NiF7vV8RYvRRLBP2eq8s","choices":["Abstain"],"remark":"Note - I have decided to abstain to avoid the appearence of conflict, as an informal advisor to Kylix. Original reasoning follows: We shouldn't take this ref as a referendum on whether or not Hydration should be supported, or if they have made very valuable and longstanding contributions to the ecosystem (they have). Rather we need to examine the proposal’s effectiveness for the spend. There are a few reasons why I believe this is not the right spend for the treasury at this time: 

1) The strategic impact and lasting benefit has not been laid out clearly in the sense where we can calculate an ROI. We need to understand the effectiveness of the spend here and evaluate against other potential ways to spend the funds. 

2) Similarly, it’s not clear what the lasting results of this spend are, e.g. once the liquidity incentives run out. This will certainly provide a temporary boost in liquidity and transactions, but it’s likely most of the liquidity that enters will leave. I would like to see an educated estimation of the retained benefit, e.g. liquidity, users or transactions that would stay in the ecosystem as a result once the incentives are over.

3) The amount requested does not match the amount of planning or analysis or scrutiny of the spend. In fact many of the exact plans are unknown and they may shift during the period of the year. 

4) The amount requested is oversized compared to the market cap of Hydration, and there is not enough “skin in the game” from HDX tokenholder side. There should be shared risk that ensures the best performance, which I don’t find in the proposal now. One idea is for this to be a token swap rather than a grant. 5) I believe the treasury should be more conservative with complex defi primitives (beyond basic tokens), and wait for them to be battle tested over a period of time before incentivizing liquidity for them or swapping assets into them. Even with reused contracts from other ecosystems, the risk can be sizable.

6) I believe the treasury should also be conservative when supporting limited sets of staking providers/validators over others, especially with the size of this grant.

I believe we can and should support Hydration, as well as other liquidity providers, but we need a framework for shared risk, and a more sophisticated monitoring and feedback loop for results/goals.","voterNetwork":"polkadot","version":"4","timestamp":1748009953},"address":"1ZSPR3zNg5Po3obkhXTPR95DepNBzBZ3CyomHXGHK9Uvx6w","signature":"0x46dfb45dba01f998fd9c872d40fc36467e590576c3e51c20e17d8b1c3ac6276a868c8dc793cf1fcfb0435f7fefdf3e6a47359758555eea962a875e5e564c1c89","version":"2"}