The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We’re overall supportive of the proposal.
We have supported similar proposals in other ecosystems, and we believe audit subsidies are a low-hanging fruit for any DAO to tackle, potentially having a significant impact on the ecosystem’s builders. If there’s any area we cannot afford to be loose with, then that’s security.
We particularly like the lean setup, where there’s no overhead in managing the funds for the subsidies, and instead, ImmuneFi and Areta are compensated through the use of their platforms.
The outlined scoring is a good guiding tool, but we agree with @danielo and @eugene in that the final decision on whether to allocate funds should lie with someone and not be made automatically. It’s important to note that, in our view, audit subsidies are a form of grant, and grants are meant to be a tool for growth and business development. Therefore, audit subsidies should prioritise the business value for Scroll, and not just technical aspects.
The EGC could potentially take that responsibility up once it’s formed, but as @eugene pointed out, it hasn’t been elected yet. Perhaps the Foundation could step into that role, either temporarily until the EGC is elected, or permanently, if the EGC cannot or doesn’t want to have that responsibility. It could also be beneficial if someone from Scroll’s growth/BD team is involved in the process, given the dynamic we mentioned above.