I might be wrong, but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how grants work. This is not the same as the old dev fund model.
We provided costs. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part. Most grant applications, even submitted to ZCG, request funding based on milestones. They don’t necessarily share their cost, just what they want in exchange for a deliverable. For example, do we know what Qedit’s actual costs are? No, we do not. But we’ve paid them over $4M.
As for admin and other costs, if we don’t cover them, we will run out of money. Some of our admin costs include insurance, infrastructure, accounting, and other necessities to support the team.
I’m personally part of G&A. Maybe you don’t value my contributions. That’s fine for you to argue. But my point is that I think using a Chinese menu style of assessment is flawed.
The question for the community is whether or not ECC provided the value that we’re asking for. Full stop. We could have increased what we ask for to help us with the staffing gaps we currently have, increase compensation for devs that haven’t had salary increases in over a year, etc. We simply asked you to cover the exact cost we incurred to deliver for the community during those seven months when we had no funding. I think it was well worth it.