Can you point to something they did wrong that deserved the level of backlash they received? I agree They did not break their proposal 11030 down appropriately, some members of TR may have applied pressure where it was not as helpful, and at the time there was a community sentiment that TR was not listening - and they paid some people who had been working for months for free (as part of a business model - that allowed them to look to the long term, not just for TR, but for their ability to continue supporting the blockchain).
I know some of the people who were, or still are, part of TR, and I have heard some of their actual in real life consulting fees, and while not everyone, a few of them have people and organizations that have come to respect their abilities and experience and are willing to pay them consulting fees that can be rather jaw dropping to many people. That may have somewhat figured into their flat fee proposal cost. Some of it was that immediacy of the situation around the L2 public infrastructure and wallet, and having some unknowns (such as the API that was needed, promised to be released publicly by TFL, although portions of it would be in psudo-code or redacted, and it was not yet actually released). However, even minus that, even if you took proposal 11030, and added it to this proposal, it is a small drop in the bucket of what TFL was paying monthly for the public L2 infrastructure. Thankfully TFL continued to run the public L2 infrastructure longer than some of the earlier indications seemed to point to, and PublicNodes (AllNodes and TCV) and TR (and really the community which funded them so they would do it on our behalf) that have been able to find ways to come up with reliable infrastructure.
Let me put this in perspective, I was there around proposal 4159, where TFL started graciously working with us, and I was a part of those early discussions of hearing the impossible amount that TFL pays every month for the infrastructure they ran for Terra v1 at the time (and in some cases still do - this forum is run by TFL currently, it is their generosity that keeps the lights on for classic-agora, and a few other things). They were looking to help in shifting that responsibility to Terra v1 if people in this blockchain were going to start reviving this thing. And there was a real concern that the L2 public infrastructure needed a plan quickly (and there was no one stepping forward with a check book with those kind of numbers, and no way the community pool had that kind of money in it). While it turned out differently, and Interchain Station was able to include Terra v1, the quickness of the original proposal was to try to help meet the L2 public infrastructure need. Thankfully it has worked with TFL’s help, and AllNodes and TCV provided services through PublicNodes, but lets be honest, we need as many stable public L2 endpoints as possible for redundancy (including archive nodes, which most validators do not run archive nodes, if any - without those, the blockchain does not go back to block 1).
I am not saying there was not room for constructive criticism, but lets be honest - lately there are factions that seems to think that spending money to keep this chain going is somehow grifting. I am not saying that we should not ask good questions, setting reasonable and protective measures (while being reasonable and realistic), and make sure those receiving grants are not taking advantage, or abusing. But, TR has in fact delivered on their previous proposal, listened (this proposal is broken down), and are engaging in constructive discussion. And if you believe it is grifting, then vote no, put up a proposal, and convince the community that you can perform the same services (or coordinate it), with reliability, for less - happy to read it if you, or any others, can do it (I say that in all honestly).
I am not for abuse either, but lets be honest, the situation was overblown (I think the situation had very little to do with the money, but was really more of a pushback on some of the underlying control that TR exerted as a group, had exerted as it grew [both internally and externally], and its own internal structural problems which it eventually changed, and probably a few personalities, but the community did not know how to respond to it collectively - and that situation opened the door). It is difficult to keep a lot of people on the same page, and working together, and it tried to do its best (even if imperfectly, and with people being personally hurt). Proposal 11030 also did not end up being $150K since a number of people actually returned their pay to the community pool (which they were paid as part of TR’s internal business practice for doing work for months - yes including the moderators, which lets be honest, that Discord server served as a central point that provided momentum, which helped people gain knowledge of TR and became part of that momentum and movement themselves, and provided a working platform, and interaction with the developers - there are things I disagree with Zaradar about, and he later moved for developers to develop away from the distractions of Discord, but originally he said, due to the lack of trust around the crash, TR would work in complete transparency - in those days all developer channels were public [I think that is one of the things I did not think would work, but I believe he got right]). It is true, we all did work at that time knowing we were not doing it for pay (at that time I was a member of TR), but to volunteer. We did it to help those who had lost so much during the crash to possibly recover mid to long term.
Can you blame a business decision to pay people who were burning out by the day due to the weight of working a full time job and then working a volunteer job for hours (maybe not everyone, but some). Even if you listen closely to that leaked TR meeting, you will find that the point of their discussion was how to find a way to take their business outside the chain to make enough to operate, so that they could offer their services to the chain at cost (not at a profit).
My reply is not meant as a defense, but at least as a balance (and hopefully some perspective). Hopefully we can all start working together again, without all the egos of trying to capture control of a bankrupt chain - and instead work together to restore it.
In regards to this proposal, I would encourage others to read why it is important here
I hope you have a great day 