Can you define what you mean by “a one-year extension”?
Would a one-year Dev Fund consisting of 23% of coin issuance, a declining schedule, and additional Dev Fund recipients (and, therefore, a different split to the current Dev Fund) fall within your definition of a “one-year extension”?
What happens if you don’t get a clear mandate to do what you want? Will you still accept a slice of a one-year Dev Fund?
And how can there be “a clear mandate” when we have no clarity as to the details of how a “non-direct funding model” would be implemented, who or which organisations would have control of the funds, what the regulatory implications and consequences might be, and what legal exposure those individuals or organisations would be subject to?
From my perspective, you appear to be trying to railroad the community into committing to this vague, poorly-defined “non-direct funding model” right now, when the truth is that the only thing we must do right now is decide what happens in November 2024 (or simply not decide, in which case the Dev Fund expires without any replacement).
Anybody can propose, advocate for, develop, and collaborate on different ideas for the future.
Today, we don’t need to commit to anything beyond what happens in November 2024.