@It's not my prop@osal, and Id@on't work for Intersect. Others and I were just working on creating this new process.
I don't like CC overreach. it's a slippery slope that, in my opinion, undermines the integrity of the entire concept the constitutional committee represents.
Just as a thought excitement, I can write in a proposal that I want the ledger rules to be different, or that I'm the king of the protocol and that all withdrawals must be pre-approved by me, but simply recording them in an info Action has absolutely no bearing on the protocol's permissionless nature or the constitution that is currently active.
The argument that Intersect wants to centralize treasury withdrawals is nothing more than a subjective opinion, unsupported by any concrete evidence.
Again, where in the budget process does it say that every funding request must come from Intersect?
Regarding the NCL, it's currently a first-come, first-served system, and we both know that Amaru is treating it the same way; that's why you were front-running everyone else. I don't have a problem with that; it's just how the system works. DReps approve whatever spending request they want, and CC members have to check whether all procedural requirements are met and whether the NCL isn't violated. It's not a good system that will lead to effectively allocating Capital, but I'm not sure we can do much better and keep this level of decentralization
