# \[BIP-XXX\] - Orb Collective - Moving Forward

**URL:** <https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-xxx-orb-collective-moving-forward/4748>\
**Category:** General Proposal\
**Created:** [May 8, 2023, 10:28am UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-xxx-orb-collective-moving-forward/4748 "2023-05-08T10:28:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 34

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![0xDanko](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.balancer.fi/0xdanko/32/1376_2.png) [@0xDanko](https://forum.balancer.fi/u/0xDanko)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2023, 6:04pm UTC](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-xxx-orb-collective-moving-forward/4748/34 "2023-05-16T18:04:44Z")

</div>

> [@auramaxi](#):
>
> Rather than debate the issue or make a change to a proposal that doesn’t otherwise require one, the proposal should go to vote so governance can decide

Your specification:

> [@auramaxi](#):
>
> Payments to Orb to require monthly approval from Balancer governance after Orb’s leadership has provided detailed plans on spending projections for the next month and reported on spending for the previous month;

Sorry, but OpCo will need you to be super clear on this. If “Payments to Orb are to require monthly approval from Balancer governance … on spending for the previous month”, then we will incur in a contract breach by halting payments because they are made **in advance**. OK to execute if a vote passes, but I’m making sure veBAL holders are properly informed of the clause.

If the proposal is not intended to halt payments, and it’s fine with [the projections made here](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/orb-collective-updated-q2-budget-forecast-5-12-23/4775/2), then it should be fine either way.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.balancer.fi/t/bip-xxx-orb-collective-moving-forward/4748)._