I think the proposal is still a bit too vague. It mentions things like “new game modes” and “continued development of land features,” but it does not clearly define what that actually includes.

Right now, the team is usually paid for specific and tangible deliverables, such as developing a new set. That makes it much easier to understand what is being funded and what the team is accountable for.

With this proposal, that feels less clear to me. If the scope is not defined more precisely, then it seems like the DAO would be committing to paying $2 million per year without enough measurable accountability.

So my concern is: are we really paying $2 million for ongoing development, or are we mostly paying for IP co-ownership rights that, in practice, already depend on the existing team anyway? In other words, are we paying for real deliverables, or mainly for formalizing a co-dependency that already exists?

Maybe I am misunderstanding part of the proposal, but that is how it reads to me right now.