An XCM3 experiment - Kusama treasury account taking stake in the Kabocha parachain discussion
Original forum post here
There have been discussions for around a year about alternative approaches for incubating parachains, whilst also making use of relay treasuries and better aligning long term interests of voters and proposers.
This in discussion post for funding grass-roots teams aims to create guidelines, but its off-chain structure means it will always be limited since funding will remain subjective and therefore prone to friction - per this comment.
we probably should have funding policy and programs that are fair for all, and are focused on the usefulness of the proposed, rather than how rich or poor is the proposal team. A bit more meritocracy might be a good way to put it.
The question is can we improve on this?
It has been a long-standing idea within the Polkadot network for the on-chain Treasury to hold many assets, in addition to its native token. One, users making Treasury proposals may want to request funding in other assets besides DOT. In addition, the Polkadot stakeholder community as a whole may want Polkadot to acquire stakes in other assets. By providing the multi-asset support that Statemint specializes in, it can allow more options for Treasury use and management. Proposal for Common Good Parachains
The latest Kusama upgrade includes XCMv3 makes possible some interesting new things related to multi-chain governance, asset locking and cross-chain exchange.
In its simplest form, the following is an outline for an experiment we would like to run, that would see an on-chain org based on Kabocha parachain create a funding proposal to Kusama structured as an asset swap thus giving KSM holders some potential upside in the future success of a parachain.
Note KAB is intentionally unlisted on any CEXs or governance permissioned DEXs such as Karura etc.
Kabocha is a fully decentralised and leaderless network whose largest holders are Parity/W3F due to its genesis/snapshot in the Edgeware community.
The proposal relates to funding that is core to its own value accrual model, and so distinct from more general spend on better multisigs etc and therefore may be viewed as contentious by voters who do not wish to fund ‘independent’ networks, but only common good.
We’re actively researching the below, but would love to hear from others about how they might approach the following:
Proposal high level
Kusama referendum: 1000 KSM for funding research and development of a new NFT based treasury pallet for Kabocha.
Kabocha referendum: 1000 KAB spend to be approved via simplemajority and sent to statemine account where KSM holders govern its future use.
KAB will later be listed on the Statemine DEX offering a path for KSM holders to recoup its funding - or hold as part of an emerging treasury diversification strategy, which could see further spending in this model.
On-chain structure?
The aim would be to make this a unified multi chain governance process, executed across two democracies - that could develop its own UI/UX for teams to fund their new substrate chain without needing external capital.
How might this work technically is the open question?
Unlocking performance related funding
If we can marry permissionless listings and price discovery, with on-chain metrics and performance related pay, we can develop this mechanism into a stream funding model that enables successful teams to build without racing to hypey CEX listings, or return constantly to have work and progress reviewed, addressing some of the challenges facing teams in the ecosystem - and governance at large.
All comments and questions appreciated.
Comments (3)
Hey Rich, I see you've posted another proposal to the Kusama treasury, and as a Polkadot and Kusama maximalist, I feel the need to speak up about it. It's not that I'm against new proposals or innovation, but I have serious concerns about the validity of this proposal and the motives behind it. First of all, you have a history of asking for large sums of money from various treasuries, and it seems that you're using Kusama as a fallback option after obtaining millions of dollars from the Edgware treasury. It's important to note that Kusama's treasury is not a bottomless pit of money and should be used responsibly for the common good of the community. Secondly, your proposed amount of $200,000 for 10 podcast episodes seems outrageously high. It's important to be mindful of how much money is being allocated and to ensure that the outcomes are clear and related to the blockchain industry. In addition, your proposal seems to lack transparency and accountability, which is concerning for anyone who wants to ensure that the funds from the Kusama treasury are being used appropriately. Moreover, I'm deeply disappointed that you're proposing this idea for Kusama's treasury despite knowing that your previous proposal has already been rejected by the community. This suggests a lack of respect for the community's decision-making process, and it's not the kind of behavior we need in the Kusama ecosystem. As a Kusama maximalist, I believe in the importance of fostering a healthy and thriving community that benefits everyone, not just a select few. This means we need to be careful about how we allocate funds from the treasury and ensure that they're used for projects that align with the common good. We also need to be vigilant in identifying proposals that are self-serving and not transparent. In conclusion, while I appreciate your enthusiasm for innovation and experimentation, I strongly advise you to reconsider your proposal and approach. It's crucial that we work together as a community to ensure that the Kusama treasury is used responsibly and in a way that benefits everyone. I hope you take these concerns seriously and work with the community to come up with proposals that are transparent, accountable, and in line with the values of the Kusama ecosystem. In this latest proposal, you are requesting 1000 KSM for funding research and development of a new NFT-based treasury pallet for Kabocha. While I appreciate your effort to explore new funding mechanisms, it seems like a large amount of money for what appears to be a relatively straightforward project. Can you provide more details on why this amount is necessary and how it will be spent? Moreover, you mentioned that Kabocha is a fully decentralized and leaderless network, but its largest holders are Parity/W3F due to its genesis/snapshot in the Edgeware community. I'm curious about the implications of this for the project and how it might affect the distribution of the funds you are requesting. Can you elaborate on how the funds will be distributed and how you will ensure that they are used for the common good? I appreciate your vision for a unified multi-chain governance process executed across two democracies. However, I'm not entirely clear on how this will work technically and how it will benefit the ecosystem as a whole. Can you provide more details on the technical aspects of your proposal and how it will address the challenges facing teams in the ecosystem? Overall, I think it's important to be transparent about the details of your proposal and how the funds will be used for the common good. It's important to build trust with the community and ensure that the projects are aligned with the community's goals and values. I look forward to hearing more details from you and engaging in further discussion.
Yawn.
Another ChatGPT post from Cz7nwpCRUvGqtwX2tX928Ptv3oJc3zpxZan9cm9t7NGss9P
If you can be bothered, please contruct your own questions and arguments.
Additionally:
No, I'm illustrating a concept, with an example.