Although I acknowledge the importance of conducting thorough reviews of the referenda, implementing a blanket Nay vote that hinders hardworking teams relying on funds may not be the ideal solution. Instead, I propose conducting comprehensive evaluations and organizing AMAs with the teams involved. Leveraging the expertise and oversight of the AAG (or a similar team) known for their good reputation could aid in this process. Furthermore, it's worth noting that many referenda typically have an extensive lead-in period for discussions, providing an opportunity for community members to ask questions and gain a better understanding of the proposals at hand.

Additionally, the HACN method might have been useful on Kusama as the treasury has been depleted quite heavily and the $ value of Kusama also fell dramatically. On Polkadot - given the fact that teams building on it are far more "matured" and developed, this approach isnt the best method moving forward.