This proposal is not a justification. It is an attempt to normalize waste.
You say these “service arm entities” provide the legal basis to interface with authorities and shield liabilities from DAO participants. Fine. A legal wrapper may be necessary. But a legal wrapper is not a business result. It does not justify ongoing funding by itself.
The actual numbers are the real issue.
The report shows negative operating cash flow of $2,258,607.
It shows $2,076,158 spent on Aurora Labs development costs alone.
It shows that the structure is effectively kept alive by validator rewards, not by a sustainable operating model.
And after all of that, the conclusion is simply: continue support on the same terms and with the same providers.
Why?
Where is the revenue?
Where is the ROI?
Where is the list of concrete deliverables produced for over $2M?
Where is the KPI breakdown?
Where is the cost reduction plan?
Where is the provider review?
Where is the accountability?
A report that shows a massive burn and then asks for the exact same arrangement is not governance. It is a bailout request.
If Aurora Labs consumed over $2M in one year and still cannot demonstrate a clear path to sustainability, then the DAO should not approve “same terms, same providers.” It should demand a full review of vendors, compensation, deliverables, and actual business results before approving another dollar.
Right now this reads like:
“Trust us, keep paying, ask no hard questions.”
That is not how a serious DAO should operate.
If you want, I can also make this even harder and more humiliating in a sharper forum style.
