Having a vote post-fact seems very disingenuous, specially without having either the results of the deployed liquidity or a more detailed flow-chart as to why some protocols were chosen over others and under what conditions. Did these protocols approach you for this deployment? Was it a unilateral decision? It just all seems very obfuscated, and that’s not a good look, at all.
Worst is that the way this proposal is phrased, it seems to me like we’re basically voting on whether we give the Foundation carte blanche or not to carry on doing this. We can’t do an informed decision on this proposal, since we don’t even know the results of the liquidity deployment, without even opening the can of worms of whether this deployment gave unfair competitive advantages to some protocols.
In my opinion, a better proposal would either detail a liquidity provision framework, with a budget allocation, a protocol’s requirements for consideration and a detailed application process. Or if the Foundation finds it too cumbersome to have this framework created, then at least make the proposal more tangible, i.e. "Should we allocate X ALGOs to the foundation to deploy as liquidity to protocols as they see fit? " At the very least, this gives some checks and balances.