Back to Big Spender
Rejected

Referenda #234

Proposer:
Fvrb...FVGn
 
in Democracy
12th Jul '23

This is a referendumV2 whose proposer address (FvrbaMus8iASyrQYkajQWDxsYvG5gb72PFPuvy8TvkFFVGn) is shown in on-chain info below. Only this user can edit this description and the title. If you own this account, login and tell us more about your proposal.

Show More

Proposal Failed

The approval was lesser than the threshold for this track.
Summary
Failed
46.4%Aye
AyeNay
53.6%Nay
Ayes(40)
104.66K KSM
Nays(288)
120.99K KSM
Support
50.74K KSM
Voting Details
Approval0.00%Threshold0.00%
Support0.00%Threshold0.00%
Please Log In to comment
Users are saying...
Based on all comments and replies

Overall 11 % of users are feeling optimistic. Rich's efforts are greatly appreciated, with valuable contributions that sparked a controversial but important discussion. His perseverance in challenging norms is commendable, guiding future requests and treasury spending decisions. This highlights his intention behind seeking support for Rich as well.

Overall 44 % of users are feeling neutral. Referendum #234 aims to address the off-chain nature of proposal data and centralization issues in apps like Nova and Subsquare. It has been successful as Polkassembly will soon read system remarks for proposals, expanding this feature further. The referendum also discusses KPIs as concrete outcomes and considers compensating individuals like Rich who have contributed significantly to the ecosystem over the past year.

Overall 44 % of users are feeling against it. This proposal for a Kusama common good fund research project has been met with skepticism due to its high cost and perceived overpricing, as well as concerns about exploiting the treasury. Some participants also question whether highly redacted individuals should be compensated retroactively or if their work is truly valuable for understanding Polkadot on a high level.

AI-generated from comments

8Comments
57%
0%
43%
0%
0%
GqC3...m8Jj
 
 
12th Jul '23

Voted Aye

Rich has been providing highly nuanced insights on a daily basis in Kusama for the last year and I believe he deserves compensation for all of the work he has provided. His research is critical to understanding things on a high level and is constantly enlivening discussions on all fronts.

I will vote AYE because I am biased toward compensating highly loyal individuals, especially ones who ask for retroactive funding. However I think it is quite a big ask and I expect many to believe that it's too much. There's also the question on whether the Treasury should be paying a salary like this. Looking forward to seeing feedback from others!

HERT...afdU
 
 
13th Jul '23
Voted Nay

Just to be clear you're asking for $125,000 based on 211 likes of your forum posts?

Hide replies
GqC3...m8Jj
 
 
13th Jul '23

@37251a3367fd402f9933fe7b3 to be fair, he's hosted a number of crowdcasts as well.

FWIW, the way I understand this proposal is that he's asking for a W3F Researcher's salary for everything he's done in the ecosystem for the last 365 days. Take it as you will, I personally don't mind throwing him some cash.

Eatp...a332
 
 
15th Jul '23

@37251a3367fd402f9933fe7b3

KPIs links to an aggregate overview of the work to date, rather than a single defining metric. On their own, each of these metrics can gamed, but they do at least constitute concrete and targeted outcomes since a key objective of independent research is to challenge orthodoxy.

Referendum #234: Data availability, retroactive funding and on-chain invoices

dashboard profile icon
kopeboy
 
 
27th Jul '23

@asteeber But this ask is referring to the analysis! He could come back to ask more money for the crowdcasts?!

Let's "throw" him some cash, but less!

DY22...TFnj
 
 
13th Jul '23

Rich has been providing highly redacted insights on a daily basis in Kusama for the last year and I believe he deserves to be banned from all Polkadot discussions for all of the redacted redacted he has provided. His research is useless in understanding things on a high level and is constantly derailing discussions on all fronts.

I will vote NAY because I am biased towards not compensating highly redacted individuals, especially ones who ask for retroactive funding. I think it is quite a big ask and I expect many to believe that it's too much. There's also the question on whether the Treasury should be paying a salary like this. Looking forward to seeing and completely disregarding feedback from others!

Hide replies
GqC3...m8Jj
 
 
13th Jul '23

@42a31bbb8dbe420ea2f827c78 It's nice to see a totally unoriginal comment, especially one that unapologetically admits to being completely disinterested in engaging in a discussion.

Anyone who calls for censoring an individual who has only ever earnestly participated in discussions is a deplorable human being. It's not wrong to be against this referendum or to share your opinion of Rich, but to say he should be removed from the ecosystem shows your incompetence in understanding democracy.

JEuA...166Q
 
 
13th Jul '23
Voted Nay

I have no code of ethics. I will Nay anyone, anywhere. Children, animals, old people. Doesn't matter. I just love Naying.

FF4K...qVic
 
 
14th Jul '23

I echo Adam's comment. Rich's efforts are highly appreciated by myself as well. These are contributions that imo are valuable to the network.

That being said, being the first request of its kind, I would expect it to be controversial. I hope the discussion here will help us deal with requests of this nature in the future and guide our treasury spending as a whole. I would like to believe this to be the intention behind the request for Rich as well.

I applaud Rich's perseverance in questioning the status quo and driving discussions despite the headwind along the way.

FABq...ah6h
 
 
14th Jul '23

Hello Team,

Please consider adding contextual information about what this referendum is about so that the community is aware and can vote accordingly.

Thank you.

Hbux...3wPR
 
 
14th Jul '23

Glad the community already discards such ideas. Helping everyone understand what the proposal is about - Date: 12 July 2023 Proposal to: Kusama common good fund Summary: 12 months independent research and analysis Term: 1st August 2022 → 31st July 2023
Type: Applied Structure: Retroactive Approval: Simple Majority Detail: https://forum.polkadot.network/u/rich/activity KPIs: https://forum.polkadot.network/u?order=likes_received&period=all Comparable: Web3 foundation researcher salary Cost: £100k VAT: £20k Total: £120k Total USD: £130k Price: $23.89 (2023-07-12 16:01:06 (+UTC), Block #18758035) Total KSM: 5,441.461 Organisation: Decent Partners Structure: Hybrid
UK LTD company #10153409 VAT number: 931912824 Project Partner(s) - Richard Welsh Onchain: jXC7ghviUzVcVySg3eD8prB7C9m6VzK6cw2MTyMTDTUye5q Offchain: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rfwelsh/ Conflicts of interest: none Governance: 1p1v Use of funds:

  • Working capital
  • Recoupable loans
  • Decision deposits
  • Voting Voting policy: Aye - directions Nay - domains Abstain - real or perceived conflict of interest Donations: FvrbaMus8iASyrQYkajQWDxsYvG5gb72PFPuvy8TvkFFVGn Patronage: patronage.shokunin.network/creators/FvrbaMus8iASyrQYkajQWDxsYvG5gb72PFPuvy8TvkFFVGn/?network=KUSAMA Contact: @lightbulbwelsh:decent.modular.im Website: https://decent.partners

Assuming that you have performed the role/work of a web3 foundation researcher is thinking so high of themselves and their work. Do we not realize that a foundation researcher dedicates their 100% bandwidth and works on mission statement/ clearly defined research ideas that lead to actual implementation(sometimes) or some concrete result for the community?

Lets stop exploiting the treasury.

On other note, it would be cool to have Polkassembly or Subsquare read data from on-chain remarks and show it on their UI.

Hide replies
Eatp...a332
 
 
15th Jul '23

@ProposalCritic

On other note, it would be cool to have Polkassembly or Subsquare read data from on-chain remarks and show it on their UI.

From: Referendum #234: Data availability, retroactive funding and on-chain invoices

One of the aims of Referendum #234 is to raise awareness about the off-chain nature of proposal data and the downstream dependencies and centralisation created when apps such as Nova and Subsquare read title and description from Polkassembly, rather than directly from the chain state.

In this regard it has been successful, as Polkassembly will soon read system remarks and add this info to proposal descriptions - a first step that can be expanded further as detailed later in the post.

dashboard profile icon
kopeboy
 
 
27th Jul '23
(Edited)

Voluntary work, writing blog posts about your favorite app (and investment, hence already benefiting you), that were read by a few people, and then you ask 10k GBP per month?! 😕

What should developing world inhabitants think about Kusama & Polkadot? That they are not for them?

Sorry but it's a Nay for me, way overpriced.


Discover similar proposals


#507
EvoL...oVus
Deciding

Reducing inflation and setting a realistic target for coretime sales

Reducing Inflation

See More

17th Mar '25
86%

Root

Root

#507 Reducing inflation and setting a realistic target for coretime sales
EvoL...oVus
17th Mar '25
86%

Reducing Inflation

Some time has passed since our wild cousin Polkadot successfully reduced its annual inflation to 8%(with gradual reduction), as a KSM token holder I believe our loved bird is due an adjustment of its inflation parameters as well. Instead of copy-pasting Polkadot's model, Kusama can try something different, some DOT holders were left wondering if inflation could be lower, I propose we reduce it to 5%. The high initial inflation was good for early bootstrapping and incentivizing participation, the ecosystem has matured enough to aim for long-term sustainability.

Changed parameters

NOTE: As IdealStake is "75%", UseAuctionSlots = true had the effect of making the real target around 45%, this is intentional as it would increase the treasury income to around 10% with current staking levels.

inflation.png

Reducing ideal bulk coretime sales

The reduction of inflation should be balanced with an increased demand for the KSM, the main utility of KSM is to pay for coretime(which gets burned) but current prices are virtually 0 making it hard for the system to benefit from its main product offering. Elastic scaling will help grow demand for coretime and thus KSM, there might also be new sources of KSM demand like Kreivo's memberships but we need to adjust the core business model.

A while back I proposed setting a minimum price but it was pointed out by @seadanda that a better approach is to change the parameter that controls the ideal target for sales to a value that better reflects the expected demand of the Kusama cores to stop the price from further being driven to 0 and quite the opposite drive its price up to a more realistic value.

Note that this number is not set in stone, it's a starting point that can help us better discover coretime's true value.

Changed parameters

  • Setting ideal_builk_proportion: From 100% to 40%

The proportion of cores available for sale which should be sold. If more cores are sold than this, then further sales will no longer be considered in determining the sellout price. In other words the sellout price will be the last price paid, without going over this limit.


As self-proclaimed Kusama enthusiast#1, not only as KSM-only holder but as full-time exclusive builder on this network for several years, I hope this proposal well received and not seen as malicious as I only have the best intentions for this ecosystem :)

See More

Deciding
#508
EJgd...JGQZ

Remove Gabe from the fellowship

Members of the Fellowship Collective involved in projects flagged by the OG tracker should provide a proper explanation, return the funds to the Treasury, or face expulsion.

See More

5 days ago

Fellowship Admin

Fellowship Admin

#508 Remove Gabe from the fellowship
EJgd...JGQZ
5 days ago

Members of the Fellowship Collective involved in projects flagged by the OG tracker should provide a proper explanation, return the funds to the Treasury, or face expulsion.

Invarch failed to provide the first two, so Gabe, a founding member of the team, does not meet the ethical standards required to have a voice in the Fellowship.

TENETS (extract from the fellowship manifesto)

"Members are expected to faithfully uphold the following tenets.
Clarifications to the rules should be in agreement with these tenets. Acting in clear breach of these tenets may be considered by voters as grounds for non-promotion, demotion or, in extreme cases, exclusion from the Fellowship.


(1) Sincerely uphold the interests of Polkadot and avoid actions which clearly work against it.
(2) Respect the philosophy and principles of Polkadot.
(3) Respect the operational procedures, norms and voting conventions of the Fellowship.
(4) Respect your fellow Members and the wider community"

See More

#509
E5qF...tqrg
Deciding

KSM RFP #1 - Shielded Kusama Hub Transfers - $50k Total Prize!

See More

5 days ago
36%

Treasurer

Treasurer

#509 KSM RFP #1 - Shielded Kusama Hub Transfers - $50k Total Prize!
E5qF...tqrg
5 days ago
36%

This RFP was adapted over several weeks on AAG to turn a treasury proposal in discussion to an RFP with refined scope and oversight. To apply for the prize pls fill out this form.  


Prize Pool: $43,000
Finder’s Fee: $2,000 **
Supervisors: $5,000

Supervisors (Bounty Curators)

  • Flipchan
  • Byte (Erin)
  • James Slusser

Excess or unused funds will be returned to the treasury by Bounty Curators.

Timeline

Monday, March 17 - AAG Discussion & this forum post! ✅
Monday, March 24 - Single-ref Bounty + Curators ✅
4 Weeks after Bounty Funding - Submission Deadline Thursday
July 31 - Project Completion (Pending Kusama Hub Launch)

Project Scope

Smart Contract Development

  • A Solidity-based smart contract deployed on Kusama Hub
  • ZK enabled for private deposits & withdrawals
  • Compatibility with all Kusama Hub assets

User Interface

  • Browser-based, mobile-ready UI hosted on IPFS
  • Support for: Deposits, Withdrawals, Transfers, XCM Transfers
  • Compatible with popular ecosystem wallets (Nova Wallet, Talisman, Subwallet)

Anti-correlation Attack Mitigations:

  • Fixed deposit amounts (e.g. 1, 10, 100, 1000 units)
  • Batch payouts for withdrawals to multiple users
    Interoperability
  • Ability to receive assets via XCM from any Kusama-connected parachain and transfer them to Kusama Hub for use in shielded pool.

Open-Source Delivery

  • All code (smart contracts and UI) published under the MIT license
  • Publicly accessible repositories Project updates shared transparently via Polkassembly, Subsquare, or Polkadot Forum from Team with Milestone deliveries
  • Developer & User documentation

Milestones

Milestone 1, Initial Pools & Basic UI:
$16,200 USD
1 month

  1. Tests - Smart contract test
  2. Smart contract - ZK shielded smart contract with KSM and multi asset support on Westend or Paseo
  3. Basic UI - A basic UI for interacting with the smart contract

Milestone 2, UI + XCM:
$9,900
1 month

  1. Tests - tests for all features
  2. User interface design - UI design
  3. XCM transfers - XCM transfer assets in UI
  4. Fixed amount transfer only - Allow fixed amount transfers in the UI

Milestone 3, Mainnet Deployment:
$16,900
1 - 1.5 months

  1. Contract Migration to Kusama Assethub - Migrate contract from Testnet to Kusama Hub
  2. Public documentation - Documentation for using Kusama shield and developer integration documentation
  3. Test - tests for contract
  4. V1 UI - User tested & something we can be proud of

** re: Finder’s Fee: this payment is set aside to incentivize a broad search for the right implementor. Finder’s Fees are paid out at time of team engagement. Teams that submit themselves can collect their own Finder’s Fee at completion of project.

See More

Deciding