awesome that you ask me RDK!

I think the proposal itself is articulated well and has a consistent point - give 1/2 the DEC Burns to the team for their revenue.

I don't think you can make the proposal any more fair or clear.

I think the negative issue, as you also clearly stated, is that this slows or delays the mechanism for locking up the DEC, thus impacting our economy to a very small degree. The main issue I see with this is precedence.

While by itself its not a huge deal, people tend to try and repeat behavior on the "next" thing that comes up. By not clamping down on this and holding a firm line, then I think the fear is that the future proposals will also want to use the DEC being either burned or even worse in the DAO.

I tend to fall in the camp of being conservative and I prefer discipline, which sometimes means working out things with harder solutions. So while I think you have done a great job of identifying the problem and finding a solution, I think it would be better if we could find a way to 1) find an alternative to Matt's proposal (which you did well btw) and also 2) see if there are even better ways to find the money where we don't have to take it from either the burn or the DAO (for sure).

Sorry for the long response, but I wanted to give you the courtesy of answering your question because I really do appreciate your proposal, its structure, and the way you handled adversity in the comment section. You earned my respect RDK! :)