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.

I identify with the problem you're trying to address and I am also working on a solution to address this. I am doing so at my own cost and later intend to seek funding from the treasury after there's proven results.

Even in my wildest dreams I can not see myself asking for 1.5 million USD for the programme which includes development and funding participants and dare I say my thoughts on how to achieve this are more well formed.

Please think this through more and take some risk.

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.