Questions:

1 - Could you please list all the invulnerable collators and which of the five Kusama System Parachains they are associated with, and detail the server technical details and configuration (e.g. self-hosted or cloud service provider used if any, bare metal dedicated or shared cpu, ram, storage, bandwidth, historic uptime track record, country server hosted in, backup frequency) that each of those invulnerable collators are using?

2 - In section 2.2 of the "Proposal document" in the section "methodology for obtaining permissionless and invulnerable slots" it says you "plan to build on the selection process as changes settle in and there are more interested candidates". i) How are you going to obtain governance approval of your selection criteria and selection process? ii) What will be your selection criteria? iii) Is your selection criteria going to be similar to the selection criteria that was used by the Paseo Network when they were onboarding infrastructure providers, where they had limited diversity and restricted it to contributors that had been a contributor to the Polkadot 1KV Programme or that maintains an invulnerable collator for a system chain for a parachain connected to either, Kusama or Polkadot, but did not welcome other equally skilled and experienced prospective contributors (e.g. that may maintain a validator or collator in the Polkadot ecosystem)? iv) How often will you review that selection criteria and selection process and obtain governance approval to continue with or without changes (e.g. change the collators, or the number of collators, or the selection criteria)? v) How will you assess whether each of those Kusama System Parachains have reached an adequately more mature state and that you have finished bootstrapping a stable set of invulnerable collators and permissionless collators and are able to relax your selection criteria and selection process (e.g. similar to what Paseo Network proposed they would do here)?

3 - In section 2.3 of the "Proposal document", there is a performance spreadsheet entitled "System Parachains Collator Bounty", where there are cells that show a child bounty reward in KSM on specific dates and provide a link to the child bounty. Where is the glossary that explains what CR and SR refer to in those child bounties?

4 - In section 2.3 of the "Proposal document", there is a performance spreadsheet entitled "System Parachains Collator Bounty", how did you establish that an hourly rate of $80/hr was justified?

5 - In section 2.3 of the "Proposal document", there is a performance spreadsheet entitled "System Parachains Collator Bounty", it states that "Development work due to changes with staking pallet" was required, could you please provide evidence of that development work?

6 - In section 2.3 of the "Proposal document", there is a performance spreadsheet entitled "System Parachains Collator Bounty", could you please provide the hosting fee payment receipts for each "Hosting Fee" that is shown?

7 - In section 2.3 of the "Proposal document", there is a performance spreadsheet entitled "System Parachains Collator Bounty", is there an accompanying report document that explains in detail to the Kusama community of stakeholders how they should interpret the values shown in that spreadsheet?

8 - In section 2.4 of the "Proposal document", you mention that there were two incidents, so could you please provide a link to your Incident Post-Mortem Process and the Incident Report for each of those incidents (that details the cause, impact, actions taken to mitigate it and resolve it, and future actions to prevent it happening again)?

9 - In section 3.1-3.2 of the "Proposal document", how did you determine the deposit that is required in KSM for invulnerables and permissionless collators on each of the Kusama System Parachains, and why are the deposit values so low? In comparison, the deposit required to register a parachain ID and upload WASM code on Kusama Coretime is ~1100 KSM https://substrate.stackexchange.com/a/11608/83

10 - In section 3.1 of the "Proposal document", why is there a majority with 4/6 of the invulnerables on Kusama Encointer being run by Encointer?

11 - In section 3.1 of the "Proposal document", why are you only focussed on retroactively funding Polkadotters's Kusama Encointer collator, but not adequately collaborating with the Encointer team to consolidate all their retroactive funding requests that are associated with Kusama System Parachains, as highlighted in my comments of concern in their Referenda #420 here?

12 - In section 4.2 of the ["Proposal document"] it states "Requests for modest amounts are also included to cover administrative expenses, the cost of the performance assessment tool and a 10% contingency on the total budget amount to buffer fluctuations with token prices". How are you going to handle fluctuations in the token price that exceed your 10% contingency? Are you going to just absorb the cost impact?

13 - In section 4.2 of the ["Proposal document"] there are tables where you are requesting upfront a "Price Fluctuation Buffer", rather than requesting those contingency amounts ad-hoc retroactively, as the need arises. As such, are you intending to return that contingency "Price Fluctuation Buffer" to the Kusama Treasury? If so, when will you return it by, and what interest rate are you expecting the Kusama Treasury to charge for that duration, or what interest rate are you offering to borrow those continency funds?

14 - In section 4.2 of the ["Proposal document"] there are tables that mention "Perf Tooling" and "Tooling". What is the difference between these tools? Could you please provide a copy of the invoices or payment receipts associated with those tools, or a breakdown of those tooling fees? Is "Perf" an abbreviation for "Performance"?

15 - In section 2.4 of the "Proposal document", you mention that there were two incidents. How has the "Performance based monthly incentives" in section 4.3 been adjusted for the collators that were associated with those two incidents? Why does the same fixed-flat incentive still apply despite the occurrence of such incidents?

16 - In section 4.5 of the "Proposal document", there is the "Performance Assessment Tool" section. How are you allowing and incentivising external curators to also undertake that task to verify that the performance assessment results that you obtain are correct?

17 - In section 6.0 of the "Proposal document", why does it state that "hosting should be distributed and collators should not use the same provider" is only a guideline rather than a requirement? Why was this overlooked as being an initial requirement, and is only now arising as a "Future initiative"? For example, given that it is only a guideline there's nothing stopping the four (4) Encointer Invulnerables for Kusama Encointer (that comprise >65% of the invulnerables collators) from all being hosted on the same cloud service provider.

18 - In section 6.0 of the "Proposal document", why does it state that "all System Parachain collators are members of the Polkadot 1kv validator program" is only a guideline rather than a requirement, so it is consistent with how it is a requirement on the Paseo Network? Note that I do not believe it should be a strict requirement, I'm only questioning the inconsistency, whereby some consider it a strict requirement, whilst others consider it a guideline.

Sorry but I NAYed it in the end. Ref 420 is also requesting funds from the Treasury, so something is wrong here.

And Eincointer is not even aware of the funding from 419…