This is not a formal treasury proposal. We created this post to show our ideas and collect feedbacks. 

If councilors are interested with these ideas, we may split them into relatively small work to apply treasury, and roughly they will be treasury explorer, remark system and reputation system.


# 1. Problems

Treasury is a great feature compared to other blockchain ecosystem, while it help sustainable development of the whole ecosystem. But we have concern about following issues:

1. How to measure the ROI of each expense.
2. How councillors measure the result of each proposal, and how can the community know the measurement.
3. Currently the councillors' work is great, but how to help them reduce the cost to judge proposals.
4. How to make councillors know the opinions from community for the **result** or **output** of one specific proposal.
5. What if councillors made bad decisions.
6. How to measure contributors for their work with the treasury, and in return how this measurement can help the judgement of new treasury applications.

# 2. Treasury explorer

Yes, we can check the latest status of treasury and tips at [subscan](https://kusama.subscan.io/treasury), or maybe [polkascan](https://polkascan.io/). But we need more details, while the key feature is the **TIMELINE** of each expense, and all history actions should be tracked and listed in the timeline to help us understand the lifecycle of one treasury expense. Generally the time line will include:
- Discussions record(polkassembly post) before the formal proposal.
- Formal proposal on chain: the transaction, the proposer, the beneficiary.
- Related transactions and events, like the spend event for every expense. For bounties, each state transition will be listed.
- Each vote or cancel by councillors. 'Aye' or 'Nay', and by which councillor.
- Treasury beneficiary's report about the proposal.

This specific treasury explorer will include following features:
- Latest treasury status and some statistical information like proposal, bounties, and tips amount, how much money have been spent, how much destroyed, etc.
- Each treasury income record and detail.
- Each output or expense record and detail, especially the timeline of each expense. Treasury proposal, tip and bounty will have customized detail page.
- A token history price tracker will be involved to help decide the real cost of a treasury at the happened time.
- Some admin manual management work will be involved to add discussion and treasury report post info.

This treasury explorer aim to help us to see the whole lifecycle of one treasury expense. It's not just a UI, block and extrinsic scan, database storing, indexing, data query will be involved to help render the whole timeline.

# 3. Grade, remark, suggestion or feedback system

For each output of the treasury, ecosystem participants should have ways to give their remark, while different roles should have different rights to remark, grade, or feedback. All the remark actions will be done **based on the treasury explorer**.

## 3.1 Terminology
Let's make the remark actions clear. There will be 2 kinds of actions:

1. Grade: it means a formal grade(score or rating) to the output of a treasury expense. For example, 5 star in total, some roles can give stars to output of a expense.
2. Remark: it's not formal, everyone can give it, and show their opinions about the proposal, the council decisions, and the output.

To better remark treasure expense, we can classify councilors into following roles for one specific target expense:

1. The ones who voted 'Aye', called *AC*.
2. The ones who voted 'Nay', called *NC*.
3. The ones who didn't vote but in same council session, called *SC*.
4. The other ones, called *OC*.

## 3.2 Remark weights

### 3.2.1 Councilors
All councilors can grade the output, but *AC* and *NC* should have the highest weight, while *SC* with higher weight, and *OC* with normal weight. We call this grade score as *Council Score*.

All councilors can give normal text remark of course, while remark from *AC* and *NC* maybe ranked first.

### 3.2.2 Token holders
Token holders can grade the output, and the score is called *Holder Score*. Some limitations maybe applied to prevent cheating grade, for example, only holders with an judged identity can grade.

In general, remarks from holders with more tokens should have higher rank.

### 3.2.3 Community members
Before a convictive way to prevent cheating, normal community members can not grade.

Any one can give text remark to the treasury expense, but it will be weaker than that from councilors and token holders.

### 3.2.4 Anonymous remark
It's sensitive to give negative remark for most of people. Anonymous remark will help us see the real feelings of ecosystem participants. Of course, anonymous remark will have the most weak weight.

For councilors or token holders with an identity who want to make a anonymous grade or remark but with identity proof, currently we have no concrete way to implement this, but we will do more research and consult other teams for a solution.

# 4. Reputation system
Reputation will be built based on the grade and remark. A main reputation score will be calculated for treasury participants.

## 4.1 Roles who will get reputation scores
- Treasury expense(proposals, bounties and tips) proposer and beneficiary.
- Councilors who voted.

## 4.2 Judgement principle

### 4.2.1 Growth
- Proposer's reputation will grow when the proposal get approved by the council.
- Bounty curator's reputation will grow when they accept the council's assignment.
- Get high grade from councilors, proposal(including bounties) beneficiary's reputation will grow, while proposer(or curator) get a relatively less growth. 
- *AC*'s reputation grow when their voted proposal get high grade from other councilors.
- *NC*'s reputation grow when their voted proposal get low grade from other councilors.

### 4.2.2 Loss
- Proposer's reputation will decrease when the proposal get rejected by the council.
- Get low grade from councilors, proposal beneficiary's reputation will decrease, while proposer get a relatively less decrease. 
- For bounties, if get low grade from councilors, curator and beneficiary should suffer same degree of reputation loss.
- *AC*'s reputation grow when their voted proposal get low grade from other councilors.
- *NC*'s reputation grow when their voted proposal get high grade from other councilors.

### 4.2.3 Grow and lost weights
Generally, the reputation growth and loss will be highly related with the proposal amount. Bigger amount, higher growth or loss. For example, 10,000KSM expense should lose more reputation if failed compared to 100KSM expense.

### 4.2.4 How to handle grade from token holders
Currently to keep the reputation calculation simple, we don't take *Holder Score* into the reputation calculation. Maybe we will introduce a assistant reputation score.

# 5. Summary
To solve the feedback issues of currently treasury mechanism, we propose a specific treasury explorer with which the community can know each income and detailed timeline of each expense. 

With the customized, detailed treasury expense page, councilors, token holders and community members can give their grade and remark, which will help the evaluation of the expense.

Reputation will be built based on:
- the objective approvals and rejections
- the subjective but measurable grade

---
We are [OpenSquare](https://www.opensquare.network/) team, dedicated to facilitate the collaboration between projects and developers.


 - This post outlines ideas and solicits feedback for improving the Polkadot treasury system. The proposed ideas involve creating a treasury explorer, adding a remark system and reputation system. 
 - A treasury explorer would enable tracking of an expense's timeline, including a time log for discussion posts, treasury proposals, councillors votes, and treasury beneficiary reports. 
 - The remark system would involve giving scores and written feedback on treasury outputs. Councillors would be classified into roles with different weights for their feedback. Token holders would also be able to grade outputs, but this would have a lower weight than councillors. 
 - The reputation system would involve building a main reputation score based on objective approvals/ rejections, as well as subjective but measurable grades. 
 - This post is brought to you by OpenSquare.

#352 A proposal to extend treasury with remark and reputation building