Based on my rubric evaluation, this proposal scores 18 out of 50. It bundles unrelated decisions, lacks accountability for previously unmet deliverables, and offers no clear plan to reduce burn or increase revenue—despite requesting ~18% of the treasury. In addition, well… 100% against. IYKYK.

I've worked with Patti for almost two years and appreciate her efforts in BuilderDAO first as consultant for Zora then as our admin. Much of her work is behind the scenes and tedious and I thank her for keeping the trains running and dealing with things like legal and taxes that no one wants to deal with. Appreciate he stepping up again as our admin.

I am for this proposal. That being said, I think we need to refocus the Ops group on reducing the baseline work required to keep the DAO running. Both internal and external ops like reducing legal/tax costs, public documentation, and simplifying our technical and operational burdens. It’s not an easy job, but it’s vital. The less work we need to do to keep the DAO running, the longer we last and the more shots we have to make builder truly sustainable. Please reach out if I can help in any way!

I'm voting NO on Prop 39 because it reflects the very issues that continue to undermine BuilderDAO's credibility and effectiveness. Prop 39 recycles the same structure that’s failed to produce consistent results, while asking for more ETH and trust without providing clear proof of work. If we want BuilderDAO to thrive, we need to do better than rewarding the same cycles.

I think some things can be improved but overall very appreciative of the work Patti and the OWG have done for Builder ⌐◨-◨