Rejected

#366 Gamers Proto-Collective

Proposer:

HERT...afdU

in General

26th Mar '24

(Edited)

Description

AI Summary

Votes Bubble

Timeline

Evaluation

On Chain Info

Stats

EDIT:

This proposal was created due to Adam Steeber's request on AAG #117 to have more proposals and ideas for the Kusama DV to crunch on. I discussed these on AAG #119. The purpose of these bounties is to form proto-collectives around ideas in principle. By creating these bounties and segregating this funding it does the following:

Shows that the community supports an idea in principle which should incentivize people to work toward that idea.
Allows us to have discussions on structure and mechanisms at a later date
It reduces the burn on the treasury (We have burned $1.5M on kusama in the last year alone). By putting 50% of the treasury into bounties based on ideas in principle, we reduce the burn rate by 50%.

Stake Plus will not be involved in any of these proto-collectives as either curator or as a member. These are ideas that I've (Tom) had rolling around in my brain and thought I would shoot them out. I look forward to seeing ideas presented by other agents.

If there is a person or team interested in leading this collective, they should put together a proper proposal and apply with that idea along with a full set of curators using the bounty.proposeCurator() extrinsic. If no one steps forward, at minimum we're reducing the burn and these funds can be reaped back to treasury in the future.

The provided proposal document is meant to be a framework of how I was approaching the idea.

This proposal seeks to establish a Proto Collective within the Polkadot ecosystem, offering a fund pool to compensate Twitch streamers who integrate Polkadot branding into their streams and dedicate a portion of their streaming time to Polkadot games. Approved streamers will receive $1,500 monthly for their participation, with curators overseeing branding distribution compensated at $125/hour plus expenses, supporting up to 60 streamers.

Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ite2JxWKH3DPTe8x16drbWILMIJktJEfAwD_PTxWL7Y/edit?usp=sharing

Users are saying...

Based on all comments and replies

Overall 50 % of users are feeling optimistic. I'm voting AYE on proposals 365, 366, and 367 as they offer broad spending categories in bounties, encouraging leaders to provide clear structures for ecosystem programs. This approach fosters competition among teams vying to become curators under these bounties, leading to higher quality outcomes. The experimentation and chaos inherent in Kusama's system will be further pushed by this method of using bounties.

Overall 50 % of users are feeling neutral. Dear Tom, the text raises concerns about unplanned spending on bounties and questions the selection process for streamers. It also queries why Kusama is prioritized over Polkadot in terms of marketing spend and whether there are any risks involved with endorsements by streamers.

AI-generated from comments

HqRc...fVZn

26th Mar '24

Voted Nay

Dear Tom,

You've posted three requests to fund bounties with 33,333 KSM each, none of which provide a well defined budgets but rather on-going rates. US$125/hr is quite a lot for un-tethered curation spending. Have the curators been identified so we can attest this rate to their expertise?

I understand the flexibility that bounties provide but with that flexibility can come unhindered spending if not well planned.

Is there any reason why such large spends are being proposed on Kusama as opposed to Polkadot? Is their a gap with Polkadot's Marketing Bounty (33)?

As it relates to the proposal, how did you arrive at the ceiling number of 60 twitch streamers? Could these individuals not prove their capabilities before applying for funding? What KPI/targets do you intend to achieve? Have you identified candidates or engaged in any research surrounding same?

A genuine query... do these individuals have to preface any endorsements with "this is not investment advice?" what's their personal liability?

Regards, Will

GqC3...m8Jj

26th Mar '24

Voted Aye

I've decided to vote AYE on 365, 366, and 367. This is exactly what I wanted to see - broad spending categories in the form of bounties.

I believe this is a great way to rouse leaders in the ecosystem to step up and provide a more clear structure for these programs. By approving these bounties, we are simply earmarking the funds for a broad purpose - we aren't approving a proposed curation of these funds. That will come when people in the community submit their own bounties.proposeCurator referenda. That's when my level of scrutiny will increase - I expect teams to seriously compete to become curators under these bounties. Competition almost always generates higher quality outcomes.

I don't even think we need to take Tom's guidelines as the "law" for these bounties. Ultimately, whoever tries to become a curator under these bounties will be responsible for making commitments on wages, deliverables, and other expectations.

This is exactly how bounties should be used. And being that this is Kusama, we need to push the experimentation and Chaos.

Dm4u...1Xkk

26th Mar '24

Its not clear about the spendings and who are behind this proposal, I agreed with @Paradox NAY for now

FDL9...finf

30th Mar '24

As for me, it is too high request that can be approved but I would like to see some POC first, so it is not required to allocate such volume to prove this system works, right? How about considering 1 quarter operations and then review, repeat?

Discover similar proposals

#508

EJgd...JGQZ

Submitted