[PROPOSAL] Budget Code changes for team flexibility

Due to some change over in the team, the multi-sig addresses will need to be changed in the clients & blockchain.
To avoid having to do this every time there are changes, I’d like to adjust the code so that there is one more level of multi-sig protection for the funds
The idea would be to create a new multi-sig address with the new teams members that would receive the full 45% of the budget that goes to the individual DAOs.
The team would then send on the funds to the individual DAOs. At this point the percentages would remain as before. However, in the future we could rebalance proportions as needed with needing to force mandatory code/network updates.
The individual DAOs should remain multisig although we may just have funds go to a co-ordinator in the future. Having a multisig per DAO doesn’t add a lot of protection if we are diligent with the 1st layer of payouts and hold each co-ordinator accountable for his DAO. Obviously community fund though should remain multi-sig.
As this becomes more flushed out in terms of who is on the team, details will be provided.

Are there any downsides to this minus the temporary centralization of coins that I’m not seeing?

Other than that seems logical.

I can see the extra work that personnel changes would create, that would get frustrating especially if it happens frequently. On the other hand, with the increased centralization I worry that it might create a situation where coordinator A has influence over what coordinator B uses his/her budget for. I could envision an instance where one coordinator threatens to withhold signing if another coordinator is spending their budget on something the first finds objectionable.

The way it works now gives each DAO a degree of autonomy that would be lost if the changes that are being proposed are implemented. It really comes down to a question of what is valued more in this instance, efficiency or decentralization?

I think I may have given the impression that this would about saving developer time and effort, which is not the way I think this should be framed. Once this is time for the next change, I think future change effort will be minimal.
However, the impact of rolling out mandatory updates is an big issue in my opinion. Each time we do so, there is increased support to miners, exchanges and users alike. While it’s an annoyance to users, it’s more problematic for miners and exchanges and with there is increasing danger of them either charging us for updates or just getting fatigued updating software. Each update so far has costed the team some deal of support issues and there is danger of either forks, network stalls or just confusion.
Regarding influence of one coordinator over another I’ve got 2 points

  1. If someone can’t withhold signing, then there isn’t much point of having a multi-sig at all IMO.
  2. We have the same set of signers for each DAO (with exception of dev budget) so there is no real risk of loss of decentralization because the same people are involved as we currently have signing for the individual DAOs.
    Once we scale up, and have small independent teams for each DAO then our current system would make more sense, but being realistic that is quite a bit away. But like I mentioned before, the same person who’d veto a vote for the higher level DAO could essentially do the same thing now with these lower level ones.
    In closing, I also asked not to be a signer for each of the different DAOs but was added anyways. I think not having the same signers for each individual one is better, while having a set for the top level potentially different helps spread the responsibility around.