Thanks for the write up Savva. If I understand correctly, this proposal isn’t asking for more funds from VitaDAO but it’s only to specify the plans regarding the feasibility study for which funds were already allocated in VDP-17 . Am I understanding this right?
No worries. Yes, it’s approval that we can conduct the study + clinical research and payer outreach to obtain backing by a payer / philanthropy.
If this is the case, wouldn’t the VDP nomenclature be unnecessary given that the project wouldn’t need to go to phase 3? Cc. @consigli3re
It’s a relatively minor change from the original scope - the issue was that the amount was not enough for a large management consulting firm (we thought we might be able to get a low-bono price as one of our advisors was an internal champion at Guidehouse). However, ultimately, we could not get any traction with them and other firms we engaged with. We received quotes of around 10x the budget. So plan B is to conduct the study internally and using contractors.
I agree with @0xdad, since you’re making a poll, it would be important to know what are the implications of voting no.
Voting no would mean that we would need to go with the original plan to get a large management consulting firm to do a feasibility study with low-bono / in kind support or we submit another proposal (although am not sure what this would be).