Here's my personal take on both @NicolasC3rny and @adamKDean 's suggestions. Tendering... Well what should I say after I worked in the TSC for months on tendering preparations and concepts, then suddenly swiped away from mysterious forces who apparently don't want competition? A 1% fee sounds good in the first moment but imo it's not a strong enough mitigation mechanism, especially not for those convincing the voters with populism, exclusivity or blurry promises. (Yes they are a frequent thing) I would expect the 1% fee becoming a default cost , simply because it's all coming from the treasury and as such it is seen by far too many as free (not me, not you pay for) money. I have an idea for a powerful game-theoretic mechanism, that will enforce players to think , describe and calculate their proposals very² carefully. But I'm not sure anymore if such game-theory and scientific fundaments are even wanted in Cardano's governance (anyone can spot it anywhere?) and - ad you can easily read from my lines - I'm still _deeply_ disgusted and disappointed by what happened in Intersect's Board in regards of the TSC. That experience has destroyed a huge part of what would be required to believe in Cardano governance. A % fee here or rephrased constitution sentence there will not help us to make the much more significant required steps that would allow us converting treasury into proper counter value. – at Arkadi, Greece