I think in general we don't want to go into the direction of the DAO micromanaging every development. You can see very recently how that turned out on the Survival mode restart where we already had several contradictory proposals in the span of weeks. That would be incredibly unproductive from what I've seen.

Clearly defining everything that is being ideated on and that may be developed could lead us into the same trap that we had before where people are just constantly asking "wen thing" every week and some developments could be long term and may require six months to a year to deliver. I have a decent understanding personally of things the team is working on and Dave may be willing to share more specifics if need be. I think any lack of clarity there isn't meant to obscure as much as it is to manage expectations without clearly defining a firm timeline for people to hold over their heads. We have a 2 year window, these are the things we need done in that time frame.

If they don't deliver? The DAO can stop paying them. We've already had to do that with validator development. The team isn't getting handed $4m if the proposal passes, it's paid out over time on a per day basis.

What is clearly outlined is the major sales events (core set + miniset) and other ongoing revenue streams like seasonal sales events and market fees that the company generates. If things remain roughly consistent with how they have for the last 4 years the DAO should be set to recover investment + 20% before doing a revenue split with the company. That gives the company incentive to do more than just return our money as they want to be profitable while also giving them breathing room to develop new features without having to urgently push another core set release.