I do not think it is necessary to know who is behind all this or who the “Rabbi” is. The important thing is to wake up to the light of the facts. And not to get carried away by empty hopes in self-selected individuals or teams. Without any legal accountability or community oversight.
As I detail more fully in these comments
By simply following the “money trail” of each proposal or project, and who benefits from it, a person can be closer to the truth. Comparing in that process, the facts and the people behind what is proposed. So as not to fall into the trap of false hopes with statements that are pleasing to the eye or ear, but with little or no detail as to how such a statement would be achieved.
In this case it would be centralization again, relying on people or teams without any detail of what they are going to do with that money (with the same ones that Alex proposed). Just a general statement. In the hope that this way things would go faster, under the discretion to do whatever they want with the funds granted. Both the money and the power of decisions.
But the truth cannot be hidden for long, sooner or later it will begin to come to light. To several new things that begin to give a little more clarity on this proposal.
1- On the one hand, we have that the ultimate beneficiaries are the same people of Alex’s proposal.
In the same sense, instead of Alex receiving $5,000 per month, he will receive at least $23,000 at today’s value (which is 1% of 2.3M). But if we take the estimated value of the proposal, it would be $40,000 (1% of 4M), for someone who, in the words of the “Rabbi”, is of no interest to him at all. This character is given that money as a gift. That is a value of about 5-8 months combined, from the $5,000 he was planning to collect with his original proposal on a month to month basis. 
2- In turn, if we look at the people who support the centrality of funds in general and the discretionary management of them, many of them are new users. And they only say “I like” or “I support”, without assessing why they support such a proposal. I am NOT saying with this that “Rabbi” is one of them (I cannot assure such a thing), I am only saying that there are users that appear out of nowhere (with the same seniority) participating in the debate of the same proposal. Since almost nobody of the other users that participate happens such a situation (of having the same exact seniority of many).
Perhaps many of these users, are created by the same group of people, with the only purpose of giving “appearance” that they are many. When in reality they “may be” 1 or 2 people with multiple users.
The best way, in my opinion, to clarify this point, is that all those who support or think differently, should justify their support (as many of those who support or not, have actually done), so that people who think differently, can perhaps change their mind, if a true user with a solid foundation expresses it openly.
There are many here who want centrality, in a chain that by design, is decentralized. The question is why, just for the sake of “speeding up” development times supposedly? And not even asking for a forward or development plan of how such a plan would be done? 
3- But the icing on the cake of this time was the following:
In the comments above, the TR people said that they do not want the money proposed here for them. They were very specific. That they refrain from naming them here. In other words, 40% is left in the void. And they mentioned that if they wanted that money they would do it by presenting a proposal through the corresponding channels. Therefore, what is proposed here is meaningless. But this significant fact did not motivate a change in this proposal. Saying that a “plan b” that would go to the Community was already planned. But such significant fact, did not change this proposal at all. It remains the same. Who knows why not? 
. 
. More questions.
What reXxTR said 
What Rabbi said
4- For that reason, if we follow “the money route” now, we would take TR out of the middle, and concentrate on Zaradar (who said he supports this proposal but has not presented any plan to support such allocation), Edward, Dukan (who have not presented anything either, for such allocation, only forward-looking statements) and Alex (the biggest beneficiary, just for being a “good searcher” and nothing else). None of the above have made a formal proposal. Because it is precisely there, in that instance, where they should give details of what they are requesting such percentages of money for. On the other hand, here only a percentage is assigned and nothing more. More unanswered questions.
5- It should also be clarified that from this same group of self-elected people, came the support for the reduction of the burning from 1.2% to 0.2%. Part of the community believed in them on the grounds that “they know what they are doing”, when many others disagreed. In which I also disagreed. When from the beginning it was said that it was necessary to wait at least three months to really evaluate the impact of the 1.2%, together with the implementation of the IBC. But there were those in the community who supported that decision, hoping that the 0.2% would generate more volume because the CEXs would join in. That never happened. The community did NOT benefit from it. For this reason, leaving decisions to individuals or teams that “know what they are doing”, without giving the community the opportunity to manage its own destiny at every opportunity, can lead to the same type of situation.
In conclusion:
The important thing is to analyze each proposal in detail:
- Where the money is going,
- Who are the ultimate beneficiaries,
- Whether or not the power and money is centralized,
- Whether the proposal is clear on what the money allocated to it will be used for and who is responsible for it, 5.
- Whether or not those who support certain proposals are real users. Who solidly support their comments in a reflexive way, and sharing with the community their different points of view from their own experience and knowledge.
- A simple yes and no, does not contribute anything to the group, and facilitates the appearance of being several accounts, but in reality, may be of the same person.
- But above all, DO NOT BELIEVE just for the sake of it. And ask yourself questions.
It is essential then, to investigate, analyze, inform oneself, starting with all of the above, and to test the intentions of those who raise proposals to the Agora. Even more so if we observe that many of those who support or reject such proposals are newcomers to the Agora.
Good Life to All!
Nasmaté