# This is cancelled
Preimage for this referendum removed, execution will fail even if this passes.

## Original description

The P<>K bridge charges user fees on originating Asset Hub, but it pays relayer rewards from AssetHubs' sovereign accounts on sibling BridgeHub parachains. These relayer rewards are a large part of the bridge's "operating costs".

For initial deployment, AssetHub's sovereign accounts on BridgeHubs should be pre-funded by treasury.

An initial 10000 DOT and 2000 KSM is proposed to be split among the relevant system chain sovereign accounts to provide initial bootstrap runway to the bridge.

This will only be an initial seed. As the bridge operates, it should cover operation costs (relayer fees) from the user fees paid on Asset Hub, and any unspent user fees ("bridge profits") are going to the treasury anyway, so in the longer term these funds are practically paid back (plus profits).

Exact system chain addresses being funded and amounts for each can be found here: https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238

Funding these directly from the treasury requires `Root` track which is slow and will delay bridge deployment.

The current proposal relies on me, a Polkadot Fellow, Parity employee and known contributor to Polkadot development, to receive the funds then redistribute them according to the [distribution described in fellowship GH issue tracking this](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238#issuecomment-2007179202).

If this approach is rejected, we will take the bridge deployment delay hit and fall back to creating another referendum on the root/whitelisted-caller track for moving the funds directly without any intermediary manual transfer.

Request withdrawn - going with whitelisted caller instead

The P<>K bridge charges user fees on originating Asset Hub, but it pays relayer rewards from AssetHubs' sovereign accounts on sibling BridgeHub parachains. These relayer rewards are a large part of the bridge's "operating costs".

For initial deployment, AssetHub's sovereign accounts on BridgeHubs should be pre-funded by treasury.

An initial 10000 DOT and 2000 KSM is proposed to be split among the relevant system chain sovereign accounts to provide initial bootstrap runway to the bridge.

This will only be an initial seed. As the bridge operates, it should cover operation costs (relayer fees) from the user fees paid on Asset Hub, and any unspent user fees ("bridge profits") are going to the treasury anyway, so in the longer term these funds are practically paid back (plus profits).

Exact system chain addresses being funded and amounts for each can be found here: https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238

Funding these directly from the treasury requires `Root` track which is slow and will delay bridge deployment.

The current proposal relies on me, a Polkadot Fellow, Parity employee and known contributor to Polkadot development, to receive the funds then redistribute them according to the [distribution described in fellowship GH issue tracking this](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238#issuecomment-2007179202).

If this approach is rejected, we will take the bridge deployment delay hit and fall back to creating another referendum on the root/whitelisted-caller track for moving the funds directly without any intermediary manual transfer.

- **Problem Statement:** Funding the sovereign accounts on BridgeHubs for relayer rewards poses challenges due to delays in the treasury's Root track.
- **Significance:** Ensuring initial funding for the sovereign accounts is crucial for the bridge's operational costs and efficiency.
- **Proposed Solution:** Allocate an initial 10000 DOT and 2000 KSM from the treasury to seed the relevant system chain sovereign accounts.
- **Expected Outcomes:** Facilitate the bridge's deployment by providing the necessary initial funds, avoiding delays, and ensuring smooth operation.

Requested: 0.20 undefined

#360 Request withdrawn - replaced by whitelisted caller #361