My strongest suggestion: Any decision after 0% should have a half-life that requires a fork to bring back

[MadeofTin]

There are two predominant strategies so far:

• Start small and work up
• Start large and cut down

Either way I would strong advocate for any implementation to have an on-chain halflife. e.g. in two years it goes to zero and requires a hard fork to continue. This and that the funds should not go into just one place are what I feel most strongly for the project.

In nature nothing exists passively. Things that continue to have energy added to it continue to exist. If the status quo was that it stagnates means if it isn't going well it won't continue. If it is, it will be easy to continue.

It also supports this value statement of the initiative.

• Fights capture of the funds.

Maintaining the status quo by not doing something is much different then having to re-implement the system again by getting buy in from the community once more.

[owocki]

Either way I would strong advocate for any implementation to have an on-chain halflife

Supportive of this idea.

[lrettig]

Me too, especially for the initial experimentation. If the community isn't willing to "vote" to support this on an ongoing basis then we're doing something wrong.