I personally know them and have followed them for years. Clear Aye.

Echo Saxemberg's comment that there is a good degree of "honor system" here that while we should support Raul and Otar, it reinforces the idea of "haves" and "haves-not" rather than setting a clear standard for other contributors to follow.

We will abstain from this proposal because we plan to work with them. But, we also want to provide feedback. The Retroactive Funding model, once actively encouraged as standard practice by Shawn and others on AAG and various forums, is now shifting - but we shouldn't penalize proposals that followed previous community expectations. Through personal interactions, we found Raul to be remarkably transparent and genuine in his commitment to the community. At the same time, Otar demonstrated impressive business acumen and purposefulness at the Decoded event in Brussels. Their clearly documented hourly rate actually seems modest, considering Raul's expertise. While advisory, governance, and coordination work may present ROI measurement challenges, this doesn't diminish its value. The transition toward smaller milestone-based funding with incremental deliverables is positive, but this trustworthy team shouldn't bear the consequences of our directional change - they're precisely the kind of people I would confidently entrust with resources.

Aye from me. Otar and Raul helped me a lot with my products and proposals.

We know both Otar and Raul and appretiate their value brought to the ecosystem. But on the other hand, some scope of work ("Over this period, we’ve provided comprehensive support for treasury proposals, which continues to be a key focus of our work. Our involvement includes helping teams shape their ideas, guiding them through the submission process and ensuring proposals are aligned with community priorities") seems to be so vague and un-traceable, that maybe we will go the opposite direction than others here. We abstain here, as we feel some pros and cons here.

Otar and Raul are easily two of the hardest working and valuable people in the ecosystem in my opinion. Any discussion of whether recroactive funding is or isn't allowed for payments should be done on-chain with a separate proposal so people aren't punished for following the community norms. Personally, I don't see what's inherently negative in retroactive funding as long as there is good evidence of work, proof of benefit to the ecosystem and a nicely kept timesheet.

I believe that the work that Raul and Otar do to the ecosystem is very valuable, so I think it is right to give back for what they do. I have personally consulted both of them on several occasions and I have obtained high level and professional answers..

I think it's a reasonable amount to cover the valuable contributions by Raul and Otar. Aye.