Thanks for this proposal. I was surprised to see that this went to vote without a single comment! so I’ll be the first 
Overall, I love the spirit and imitative to involve community members to help us scale, But Why are we so hyper-focused on 100 chains?
The largest concern I have about this proposal (or rather the goal) is that it’s under the assumption that we should be onboarding more chains. The biggest crisis we are dealing with right now is infrastructure costs for node running due to us prioritizing quantity over quality. This gives me the same vibes as our initial choice with Pocket nodes. If we onboard more and more chains, the infrastructure costs for the network continues to increase. We do not have an existing supporting mechanism to keep infrastructure cost down for chain nodes, yet we keep on-boarding more and more digging us a bigger hole to crawl out of. We need supporting mechanisms to actually utilize the chain nodes that are taking < 30% resources in a lot of node runners systems and a mechanism to drive customers to actually pay first before we scale out further IMO - otherwise we are back to same problem again and again.
There is absolutely no way this is feasible if every node runner decides to spin up their own chain nodes. That is how we spend a lot of money into resources and end up being over provisioned. It’s gotten us to where we need to be, but now it’s time to optimize and introduce more layers to make our network more efficient. I would feel more comfortable revisiting funding Triforce after we see a couple more things happen
- A mechanism to share chain nodes like discussed in this idea to reduce chain infrastructure costs
- Wait until we observe the after effects of app stake purchases and the demand it actually brings in the Portal
TLDR - Bit neutral on this. Think it’s a solid idea, just not the right timing.