Hi,

Wanting to be adding to this thread because most of the discussion has focused on the present (current liquidity, current audits) or the future (self-sustainability). What hasn't been examined as closely is the past: the previous VSC proposal that paid out 420K HBD over 365 days, plus whatever ran before that. @themarkymark put the cumulative figure at ~$800K. Either way it's not a small number, and I think the community deserves answers about what it actually bought before authorizing another year.

I read the previous VSC proposal alongside this one and several things stand out that aren't addressed here.

Where did the team go?

The previous proposal named five contributors by handle: @vaultec, @geo52rey, @platinium, @manuphotos, and @l337m45732. @lordbutterfly was introduced at the end of that proposal as a brand-new BD hire.

This proposal's named team has @lordbutterfly as project lead, @vaultec moved to a technical/BD role, and five names that didn't appear in the previous proposal at all. Four of the five contributors who received wages from the prior funding cycle aren't on this one. That's near-total team turnover inside a single proposal cycle, framed here as a "leadership transition" rather than what the receipts actually show. What happened to each of those people, and what did their wages produce before they left?

The 560% productivity claim cuts both ways

The proposal volunteers that output rose 560% under new leadership over the last 75 days. If true, the prior period (which the community paid for) was producing at roughly 15 to 18% of current pace. You can't lead with that number and not expect questions about what the previous funding actually delivered.

Things from the old roadmap that are now quietly gone

The previous proposal made specific commitments. Holding them up against today:

• Wrapped BTC: promised August 2025. Never shipped as wrapped BTC. The pivot to TSS native BTC is technically an upgrade, but the community funded one architecture and is being handed a different one with no reconciliation.
• HIVE-HBD pool: promised May 2025, live now (months late).
• Coinbase and Meld.io fiat onramps: promised explicitly, absent here.
• Hive Engine bridge / migration tooling: promised, gone.
• "Mimic Hive replica" testing tool: promised, gone.
• HBD-USDC pool: framed in the prior proposal as transformative for HBD stability, now silent.
• V4V: funded line item at $75/day in the previous proposal. @hallmann79 already asked. Still no answer.

Altera was funded once, then rebuilt

The previous proposal explicitly funded "a revised version of the Altera DeFi app from scratch." This one proudly announces "a complete app rewrite, not a reskin, a whole new application." So the community paid for one Altera rebuild and is being asked to applaud a second on top of it. What was wrong with v1 and what fraction of the previous funding went into it?

The rebrand itself

VSC became Magi and this proposal doesn't explain why. Brand distance from prior performance? Legal? IP? For a project asking the community for another full year of funding, that's something we deserve to be told plainly.

On the AI/security angle

@igormuba71's audit work is exactly the right kind of due diligence, and the response that those bugs were caught May 2nd internally is reasonable. But the corollary question stands: how much of the current codebase is AI-generated, and how does the review pipeline scale to that? Critical bugs in EVM bridge code with real funds on the line are not a place where "trust the speed" is reassuring.

What would change my vote to yes

I'm not asking for the project to be killed. Mainnet is real. TSS native BTC is technically impressive. A leadership change after a slow year can be the right call. But the appropriate response to all of the above isn't "trust the new pace for 12 months at 900 HBD/day." It's tighter terms:

1. A public accounting of how the previous funding was spent, including wages to contributors who are no longer on the project
2. A written reconciliation against the previous roadmap, item by item: shipped, late, replaced, dropped
3. A shorter funding window of 60 to 90 days at a reduced ask, gated on shipping the "Immediate (0 to 60 days)" list this proposal commits to: DASH activation, EVM production, ZK production, Incentive Pendulum, fiat onramp
4. Public disclosure of why VSC became Magi
5. Status of V4V

As written, this proposal asks the community to underwrite the same execution risk that just produced near-total team replacement, on the strength of 75 days of metrics and a marketing rewrite. That's not a price I'm comfortable paying without these questions answered first.

@lordbutterfly @vaultec, would appreciate direct responses.