Security = no brainer. I'm all for this proposal, and 200k is peanuts compared to the damage an exploit could cause.
OIP-23 Audit for critical contracts
The security of the contracts is the most important. Allocate as much as you need money to make it happen properly. High security will bring more new Homies.
Whenever a contract is changed or a new one added, there should always be an audit, just to be safe. So I'm definitely for this. The cost of doing this stands in no contrast to what exploits cost.
Better safe(r) than sorry.
An added bonus is that audits also might show the developers some good practices they can adopt for the future, even if no critical bugs are discovered.
Better to pay in OHM, gives OHM an additional use case.
This is like a "duh", of course we should audit that, 
cryptocartesius 100% agree, should be a regular thing.
My sentiments exactly. 
In favor of the audit. The longer-term partnership is ambiguous. Does the $200k have anything to do with the longer term partnership (assuming not) and what does that mean exactly?
Just commenting to explicitly agree on this.
who does the audit? our team will choose high quality auditioners, right, and reevaluate their audit yourself?!
DDKingMidaz I love the idea of starting to use OHM/sOHM as a form of payment before the protocol leaves the alpha growth stage we are currently in. I think it will help with adoption and understanding of this very novel protocol & coin.
