It appears that a proposal to pay four individuals $90k per year each, along with splitting $7.7M worth of $JUP over 1-2 years, has been approved. This decision may seem surprising or concerning to some, leading to questions about its rationale and potential implications.

There are several possibilities to consider:

Lack of Awareness: It's possible that some community members may not have fully understood the details of the proposal or its long-term implications. They may have voted "yes" without thoroughly reviewing the proposal or considering its consequences.

Trust in Leadership: Despite concerns or reservations, some community members may have chosen to trust the leadership or decision-making process within the project. They may believe that those in charge have made informed decisions in the best interest of the project's success.

Misalignment of Incentives: The proposal may have been framed in a way that aligned with the interests of certain stakeholders or decision-makers, leading to its approval despite potential objections from other community members.

Limited Alternatives: It's possible that community members perceived this proposal as the best available option among a limited set of alternatives. They may have voted in favor of it as they believed it offered the most viable path forward for the project.

Overall, while the approval of this proposal may raise concerns or questions among some community members, it highlights the importance of transparent communication, thorough evaluation of proposals, and active participation in governance processes within decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) like $JUP .