Hard nay. Left my comments on the proposal: https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1557#1

Thank you for proposing a solution that integrates blockchain and would be built on Polkadot. Interested to know how this would continue to run. What parties are needed and what cost would that entail? Who would do the hosting and how much would it cost? What would be the benefits over the potentially similar solutions that others have worked on?

From what I understand by both fellow DAO members as well as comments left by community members under the proposal, much of the functionality proposed is already available to proposers but isn't used. While I understand some streamlining is possible to make the proposal process smoother, I would assume most proposers have enough technical acumen to make use of the already available tools to secure the integrity of their proposal documents. Maybe a WFC is in order to enforce this?

We share the same concerns as The Ionian Group.

I think this proposal try to solve a real problem in a wrong way.

Out of my Depth slanting towards a Nay based on Forum and internal comments

The proposed strategy seems excessive imo. A lightweight, cost-effective solution that minimizes friction for proposers and voters should suffice. By reaching community consensus on the best approach (as discussed in ongoing forum threads), we can likely implement a solution faster and at lower cost than proposed. Leveraging existing platforms like SubSquare or PolkAssembly is preferable, as they are well-equipped to deliver such features quickly and efficiently.

The problem is valid, but this approach feels overengineered and redundant when simpler, existing tools already cover most of the functionality. Nay here.