We will be voting NAY on retroactive referenda of these characteristics, specifically of high value. To us, it is a better way to outline a plan of action so that tokenholders are able to follow what deliveries were fulfilled and what deliveries were not fulfilled as opposed as this high value retroactive approach which might not be in the interest of the tokenholders.
So we would prefer that well known teams such as these one as well as newcomers take the non-retroactive route so that a better gauge of the interest of the community exists in the described work. This idea will be heavily enforced on our vote starting on cohort 4's term as described on our DV cohort 4 application: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-voices-cohort-4-saxemberg/11868

Specifically for referendum 1489, we don't think that Metamask has a future worthy of software and fund support despite some significant user activity. It is our opinion that talented teams like this one are capable of delivering other products more aligned with the current direction of web3. Yet we understand that snap could be a funnel (albeit its impact reduces every day) which is why we voted AYE on the previous referendum so we won't oppose heavily the continued support if the tokenholders decide this is a funnel worth keeping. It is just our opinion that more applications is THE best user and business funnel.
We as a company use Polkagate and we believe it is heavily underrated by the community so we would encourage the team to continue to be engaged with OpenGov as their talent is always welcome in Polkadot.

I have two points to share about this ref, one positive and one negative:

Positive: PolkaGate has been one of the teams, that for many years now, implemented almost all the staking features that the Polkadot protocol provides, and importantly have provided both Parity and Fellowship with valuable feedback. I think this is a productive attitude, and one that we should encourage in the ecosystem, yet it is not enough to warrant an indefinite future funding for them.

Negative: I have seen an increasing degree of Pushback on some of the proposals raised by PolkaGate, and I believe PolkaGate should work more deliberately towards aligning itself with the actual needs of the community, and implement features that are actually needed. For example, if retroactive funding is not desired by the community, this should be embraced rather than fought against.

End of the day I wish to see is the for the team, who are rightfully "Polkadot Enthusiasts", to find more common ground with the overall community, and work in coordination.