There’s plenty of visibility. The fortnightly summaries - the Meeting Minutes are very specific - you can see exactly what each member said about the grants at each stage, and their reasoning.
I’m more concerned about the process for the Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grants Program.
The coinholder voting itself is fairly transparent, but can a retroactive grant applicant understand why they were turned down?
Without some kind of text field explanation from the coinholders voting, how can they know what needs to be improved?
The FPF is soliciting comments. I think they could benefit from your input: