This proposal aims to cancel proposals 120 and 121 which have no data included instead of phishing links leading users to interact with phishing sites using the wallet.

Cancel phishing links contained in Proposals 120 and 121

Dear Community,

This proposal seeks to adjust validator minimum commission rate and keeps all other staking configurations unchanged. In the current market (last several months) validator income from the minimum commission can cover less than 50% of the server rent costs. In order to maintain a sustainable environment and prevent the network degradation, I would like to start discussion and hear community opinion before moving this proposal to the onchain referendum voting.

Majority of these things are not new and have been discussed before. I would like to invite all participants in previous discussion to provide their feedback. Majority of the information used for this proposal is taken from the following proposals, discussions and referenda:

[https://kusama.polkassembly.io/proposal/108](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/proposal/108)

[https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1899](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1899)

This referendum seeks to increase the minimum commission from 3.0% to 10%.


**Validator earnings and effects on staking rewards**

A fully active validator operating at 3% commission can stand to earn (485.2/1000)* 4 * 30 * 0.03 = 1.75 KSM/month. With KSM priced at 25$ this equates to ~45 USD/month.

The proposed configuration allows validators to earn (485.2/1000)* 4 * 30 * 0.1 = 5,82 KSM/ month which equates to ~ 145 USD/month.

At KSM at 30$, earnings above are ~52 USD/month and ~175 USD/month.

At KSM at 50$, earnings above are ~87.5 USD/month and ~291 USD/month.



**Effects on nominator staking rewards**

Assuming a total stake of 6600 KSM, at 3% commission a nominator earns ~10.42% APY whereas at 10% commission a nominator* would earn ~9.7% APY, a 0.72% difference.


**Validator operational costs**

There were several topics regarding to the validator infrastructure expenses and operational costs that can be found here:

[https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1980](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1980)

[https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1306](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1306)

I tend to agree with majority of what is being said in these two topics. With the recent rise of the energy prices and the datacenter costs, together with increasing hardware resources I would say that most Kusama baremetal servers are rented in the price range of 100-200$ a month. I also think that every validator puts a minimum of 2 hours a month on operation maintenance.

This would put most of the validator operational costs between 300-500$ a month.


**Summary**

The proposed increase of minimum commission to 10% is trying to create a better and more sustainable network environment. With the numbers given above it is clear this is a small step towards this goal. Beside the commission, we would need KSM price to double and reach 50$ in order to earn ~291 USD/month which is a bare minimal operational cost.

With this proposal we are not influencing KSM inflation rate. We are asking the nominators to steer 0.72% of their staking APY towards the network. We need to have strong, reliable, secure and redundant blockchain network in order to process and secure multimillion $ assets on it.




Referendum proposal - Increasing the Validator minimum commission rate

Dear community,

Based on the recent experience with the increasing number of treasury proposals, I am presenting the following proposal aiming to improve the Governance 2.0 experience through a series of referenda proposal audits. I am looking for feedback on this proposal so please feel free to ask questions and leave suggestions to help me further improve the presented project.

**Governance 2.0 Referenda Audits**

**1. Problem**

Since the launch of Governance 2.0 on Kusama I spent many hours reading, reviewing, and trying to understand many treasury discussions and proposals. I try my best to understand every proposal before forming an opinion and voting.  For the majority of the proposals, I try to provide feedback to the proposer explaining the reasons for either supporting or rejecting the proposal. So far I feel like proposals are sort of a wild game at the moment.

Most proposals are not very well structured, lack information, and include budgets that seem very hard to defend. Proposals can also be very diverse with a focus on different areas that not everyone can be familiar with. For all these reasons it is significantly time-consuming for voters to truly understand the proposal and cast an educated vote on it.

With the given time constraints, it is not surprising that proposals are receiving very little or no feedback at all. The feedback is often provided in a free form and is not always clear and precise. Such insufficient information has little use for other voters. It provides low assurance to other community members that the reviewer has objectively formed an objective opinion on the presented proposals.

**2. Available solutions**

The official Polkadot treasury page, Kusama and Polkadot Wiki provide a good source of information and documentation. Most of this information and guidelines explain the “old” Governance 1.0 system or in other words, it relates to the very specific set of proposal reviewers – Councilors. With the Governance 2.0 introduction, the set of reviewers dramatically increased from a limited set of councilors to a much wider Dotsama community. For this reason, all the documentation needs to be adjusted so it can be better presented to the wider audience where not everyone needs to be an expert in the field to have a good understanding of the proposal content.

**3. Proposal Solution**

This proposal aims to create a clear and precise framework for creating and presenting the proposals. This framework is not meant to be a strict requirement but more as a set of guidelines for the proposers to successfully present their project and increase their chance to defend the proposal and win community approval.

As the counterpart to the proposal framework, the equally important audit framework will be created as guidance for the reviewers. This audit aims to provide more precise feedback to the proposer and give a sufficient and educated review that can be later used by other voters to form their opinion on the proposal.

In a young system like this, creating these guidelines is simply not enough. To create a better treasury proposal system, a great level of engagement is required. For this reason, I propose a temporary Project manager/auditor role for a period of 3 months. The main task of the PM is to actively follow the governance tracks, objectively check and audit the proposal content according to the proposal guidelines and produce and publish the audit according to the created framework. The task of the PM is to be available to the community and gather feedback and accordingly adjust the framework.

**4. Key deliverables:**

- Proposal template – a document with predefined categories and as many pre-filled and guided data (examples) as possible.

- Feedback template – directly related to the proposal template. Possible checklist for each category with additional room for the feedback

- Produce a minimum of 30 one-page audits with included feedback on active treasury proposals or proposal discussions

**5. Key objectives/ Success criteria**

- Reduce the time required to write a detailed and comprehensive proposal – measured by the proposal owner's feedback

- Higher community involvement in the governance – measured by the number of members involved in discussions, number of provided feedback, and number of interactions with one-page reviews 

All these points are taken from the full proposal document.

[Full proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Ze8Z_f9Pa3kjALGnhu-58DNdajFQ74ONbuDeWcaFoU/edit?usp=sharing)


Proposal - Governance 2.0 Referenda Audits

Dear community,

Thank you all for your continued support in our journey toward improving Kusama's governance process. With your backing, we have been able to successfully launch the OpenCommunity Governance project.

The primary goal of the OpenCommunity Governance project is to enhance the OpenGov ecosystem. To achieve this, we aim to support the process of proposal submission, enabling proposers to draft better, clearer, and more transparent proposals that accurately reflect their project objectives.

As a part of this initiative, we have developed a Proposal Template. This template is a comprehensive guide that aids proposers in presenting their ideas effectively, ensuring they cover all necessary details, from project goals to implementation strategies.

Additionally, we have established a team of dedicated auditors who review each proposal submitted to the public. The auditors provide constructive feedback, pinpointing areas of the proposal that require improvement. This practice not only enhances the quality of the proposals but also assists proposers in refining their project ideas, making them more appealing and understandable to the community.

By doing so, we are striving to create a more robust and transparent OpenGov ecosystem, promoting inclusivity and fostering innovation.

 **If you have any questions or need help with the proposal, please consider me to be at your disposal and reach me either on [Element]([@coinstudio](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/user/coinstudio):matrix.org)  or [Discord ](CoinStudio#6629)**

--------------------
**Treasury Proposal Template:** [7 Guidelines for a Successful Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CzEnurqwqLBOGrJI9CQORiGW9m6QyPOSshhzJdR57Pk/edit?usp=sharing)

**Audit Template:** [Kusama - Treasury Proposal Audit Template](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/135DvB6o5-2A9QTYULxBcH28sPHZpZHkMMdoNfMFF-rA/edit#gid=0)

**Pre-images and Referenda guide** [Otar step-by-step guide for submitting OpenGov referenda for Treasury spends](https://scribehow.com/shared/Submitting_a_Referendum_to_the_Kusama_Network__BZxcgSYkRCaCVvm5Sxjp9g)

**All reports and documents** [OpenCommunity Governance Project GitHub Repository](https://github.com/CoinStudioDOT/OpenGov)

------------

Here is the list of proposals associated with the OpenCommunity Governance project:

[Referenda #67](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/67): This is the original proposal that launched the OpenCommunity Governance project, securing initial community support.

[OpenCommunity Governance Extension Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcWEpT5C1u4dNUH4EWCaJfpQ4qOGV19AMXPwj8qSWeY/edit#heading=h.e126djyh5msy): This proposal marked another extension of the project, demonstrating sustained community support and continued demand for governance improvement initiatives.

[Final Report Ref #67](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zTxY7SkXdZ_MfCT870I74CwB00DiCDQVvRdx6ys5ckY/edit?usp=sharing): This is the final report on the project's objectives, milestones, and deliverables, offering an in-depth insight into the project's operations and achievements.

[Referenda #177](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/177): This proposal marked the extension of the project for another two months, further expanding the scope and impact of our initiatives.

[Referenda #165](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/165): The proposal seeks community approval to officially onboard Abdulbee as a recognized member of the Auditor team, emphasizing his demonstrated expertise and the value he brings to the auditing process.

Polkadot OpenGov [discussion topic](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1810) regarding project extension to the Polkadot.

------------

Some examples of proposals written following the template:

1. Staking Admin track - [Kusama Validator minimum commission rate](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHrRM7wPv390GfhdPJeUKtfKD81X5ME5OIGrlDXqOXI/edit#heading=h.e126djyh5msy)

2. Small Spender track - [Customized Kusama Chocolate Bars](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vn8IP-YyvTWWDvzMI6JJIDn_ZAVSi9OC/view)


--------------

I am proposing the extension of proposal #67 (Governance 2.0 Referenda Audits) to onboard additional proposal curators for the treasury governance process. The purpose of this plan is to provide additional support and resources for treasury proposals.

[Full scope of the proposal.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcWEpT5C1u4dNUH4EWCaJfpQ4qOGV19AMXPwj8qSWeY/edit#)

Updated: 06/03/2023

-------------

I would like to present the [Final report](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zTxY7SkXdZ_MfCT870I74CwB00DiCDQVvRdx6ys5ckY/edit?usp=sharing) which includes a detailed overview of our project objectives, milestones, and deliverables.
I hope that our report will be informative and useful to anyone interested in our project. I welcome any feedback, suggestions, or questions you may have.

Updated: 14/04/2023

-------------

Continuation of the project OpenCommunity Governance - Proposal Audit Reports, covering the next 2 months is submitted on-chain. [Full proposal.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12dT6RWkiChINTADRnQQuYHLZK_coDPdq/view?usp=sharing)

Updated: 29/04/2023

--------------

With the approval of [Referenda #177](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/177) the project is further extended for 2 months.

Updated: 11/05/2023

---------------

It has come to our attention that Google has been flagging IPFS links from the Crust Network as potential phishing sites. To ensure the security and trust of our community, we have made the decision to temporarily remove all audit reports previously posted as PDFs and PNGs on the Crust network from Polkassembly.

Updated: 16/05/2023

---------------

Due to Google flagging IPFS links from the Crust Network as potential phishing sites, we've decided to migrate all our audit reports to [GitHub](https://github.com/CoinStudioDOT/OpenGov) for safer and more reliable access. Unfortunately, some of our early reports got overwritten and are now unavailable to retrieve from the Crust links.

Updated: 19/05/2023

--------------

We have successfully migrated all our documents and audits to [Github](https://github.com/CoinStudioDOT/OpenGov), and have established a solid structure agreed upon in collaboration with Polkassembly.

With the upcoming launch of OpenGov on Polkadot, we started a [discussion topic](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1810) regarding OpenGov proposal to extend the project to the Polkadot.

Updated: 06/06/2023

--------------

Thank you for your continued interest and support.



OpenCommunity Governance: Treasury Proposal Reports and Proposal Document Templates

Dear community,

With the on-chain approval of [Bounty 19](https://kusama.subsquare.io/treasury/bounty/19), successful assignment of 5 [Administrative curators](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/73) and approval of initial IBP members, the Infrastructure Builders Program has officially started. With the program schedule on its way, it is time to report about all activities that made IBP possible, inform the community about our current activities and  what is coming in the near future.

With all approved applicants, the current IBP member geographical distribution is:

- **Europe: 4** (Amforc - Switzerland, Crifferent.de - Czech Republic, Metaspan - UK, Turboflakes - Portugal), **North America: 1**  (Stake.plus - US, Virginia), **Central America: 1**  (Gatotech - Costa Rica), **Middle East: 1** (Helikon - Turkey), **Africa: 1** (Dwellir - Nigeria).


With the 8 members onboard we have 4 locations available. If you wish to provide professional membership services in one of the following regions please contact us:

- North America - preferably Western US
- South America -  preferably Argentina, Chile or Brazil
- Asia - preferably Southeast Asia
- Oceania - preferably South Australia or New Zealand.

Applications are open and you can apply with the **[IBP Application form](https://forms.gle/ShonANgdTt84i5os8).**  If you have any question about the program, please reach us on Element -[ IBP Public](https://matrix.to/#/!tNVRcjndUHhSDzCKFF:matrix.org?via=matrix.org&via=matrix.parity.io&via=parity.io) chat room

Full report: **[Infrastructure Builders Program - Report 02/2023](https://crustipfs.info/ipfs/QmTDLZkX9h82zaWp7MWPhopAbk3KxhFAARjTzgGaGXviaj)**


Bounty 19: Infrastructure Builders Program - Community Reports

Hey all,

As part of our ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in the allocation of treasury funds, I am opening this discussion topic where the community can track the delivery of treasury proposals. This initiative is designed to provide greater visibility into the progress of treasury proposals and to ensure that funds are being used effectively and efficiently. This initiative was started in the Kusama direction chat and this topic is meant to make it easier to keep the track on things.

By tracking the delivery of treasury proposals, we can ensure that funds are being used effectively and that projects are progressing as planned. This initiative is a crucial step in ensuring that the Polkadot and Kusama ecosystems remain transparent, accountable, and community-driven.


Community Initiative to Track the Delivery of Treasury Proposals

Dear Kusama community,

This proposal is a continuation of [two previous milestone proposals ](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/2431)aimed at improving the Kusama OpenGov. The first proposal, Milestone 0, addressed OpenGov issues by developing a proposal and audit templates, initiating community discussions, and creating audit reports. The second proposal, Milestone 0.5, expanded the initial project by introducing the program to onboard additional proposal Auditors to enhance the decentralization and accuracy of score results.

**Problem**

An additional challenge in the current proposal evaluation process is the lack of constructive feedback during the discussion phase. To address this, appointed auditors will shift their focus by becoming more involved in the earlier phases of proposal development. This proactive approach will help proposers receive feedback and address potential weaknesses in their proposals before they are submitted onchain, giving them time to evaluate the feedback and make improvements.

**Proposal**

In **Milestone 1**, the primary objective is to continue onchain proposal audits, further expand Auditor tasks, continue collaboration with Polkassembly and introduce Auditor and Reviewer roles.

To ensure transparency and community involvement, our main goal is to transfer the Audit process to the Kusama community. This will be achieved by moving the Audit report work to the **post-paid OpenGov Tips,** where approved auditors will be compensated for their efforts. This approach ensures fairness and accountability in the process while keeping it open to the community.

In this proposal, we present the continuation of the Audit team work, with the aim to deliver Audit Reports for 60 treasury proposals over a period of 2 months. Our goal is to ensure that these proposals receive the evaluation and feedback they deserve. All work will be post-paid through self-submitted tips, with auditors initiating self-tips for their completed proposal audits. To avoid overloading the treasury track, a tip must cover compensation for a minimum of 5 audit reports.

To effectively evaluate project proposals using the Audit Template, it is essential to have an objective and standardized grading system in place. The following grading criteria are taken into consideration by the audit team when creating audit reports on proposals

![](https://i.ibb.co/PmkpVMD/Screenshot-2023-04-20-at-11-05-51.png)

**Milestone 1.5** is a continuation of [Referenda #67 - Proposal Extension](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcWEpT5C1u4dNUH4EWCaJfpQ4qOGV19AMXPwj8qSWeY/edit#heading=h.e126djyh5msy) with the goal to continue education and onboarding of additional community auditors. 

All details can be found in the [Full proposal.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gVaSZ9gteD7-yWNSDrqONm_WgkyCGqJ-dEV2DN7M6xg/edit?usp=sharing)

We encourage the Kusama community to review this proposal and provide any feedback or suggestions. Your insights will help us refine the project further and make a positive impact on the Kusama ecosystem.

Thank you!


OpenCommunity Governance - Proposal Audit Reports

Dear Kusama community,
Collators on System Parachains are provided with minimal rewards for block production and small incentives in terms of transaction fees. This reduces incentives for Collators to act in a favorable manner and they may also be inclined to under-resourcing their hosts to save costs. Collators should receive funding for the provision of their services. Ultimately, this should be provided by the chain in a preferably sustainable manner. Implementation of such a system is a long-term solution. In the medium term, funding for collators can be provided by the respective Treasuries in the form of a bounty. This allows funding to be pre-allocated and independently managed.
This proposal is the final monthly operating costs payment for service providers in Q4 2023. Future cost compensation will be done under the <a href="2613">Kusama System Parachain Collators Bounty 20</a> starting from January 2024.
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UQi_DFP99i-VE8tOEQQHR10xqbIPHLqGHNW0f1imuEE/edit?usp=sharing">Full Proposal</a>
The proposal aims to secure 844.654 KSM for Collators on the Kusama System Parachains network for services delivered for 3 months - 10-12/2023.
<img src="https://example.com/your-image.png" alt="" /><img src="https://i.ibb.co/W5Jdk2r/Screenshot-2023-11-21-at-23-52-39.png" alt="" width="640" height="629" />
This discussion will be open for a period of one week before submitting the proposal onchain. We encourage the Kusama community to review this proposal and provide any feedback or suggestions.
Thank you!

Kusama System Parachain Collators - Tips Q4/2023

Dear Kusama community,
Collators on System Parachains are provided with minimal rewards for block production and small incentives in terms of transaction fees. This reduces incentives for Collators to act in a favorable manner and they may also be inclined to under-resourcing their hosts to save costs. Collators should receive funding for the provision of their services. Ultimately, this should be provided by the chain in a preferably sustainable manner. Implementation of such a system is a long-term solution. In the medium term, funding for collators can be provided by the respective Treasuries in the form of a bounty. This allows funding to be pre-allocated and independently managed.
This proposal is the final monthly operating costs payment for service providers in Q4 2023. Future cost compensation will be done under the <a href="../post/2613">Kusama System Parachain Collators Bounty 20</a> starting from January 2024.
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UQi_DFP99i-VE8tOEQQHR10xqbIPHLqGHNW0f1imuEE/edit?usp=sharing">Full Proposal</a>
The proposal aims to secure 844.654 KSM for Collators on the Kusama System Parachains network for services delivered for 3 months - 10-12/2023.
<img src="https://example.com/your-image.png" alt="" /><img src="https://i.ibb.co/W5Jdk2r/Screenshot-2023-11-21-at-23-52-39.png" alt="" width="640" height="629" />
We encourage the Kusama community to review this proposal and provide any feedback or suggestions.
Thank you!

Unfortunately, the previously approved [Referenda #177 ](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/177) failed to execute as planned. In response to this, we are resubmitting the same proposal.

The events occurred as follows, aligned with the relevant block numbers:

1. Block [#17860314](https://kusama.subscan.io/block/17860314?tab=event&event=17860314-2): The referendum was confirmed and approved (Refer to Event Details for more information). Upon confirmation, the proposal was programmed for enactment at block #17874714, which is 100 blocks later following the established protocol.

2. After 100 blocks referenda was enacted and went into the Scheduler

3. Block [#17863651](https://kusama.subscan.io/extrinsic/17863651-6): At this point, the preimage was unnoted. This action interfered with the scheduled execution of the referendum.

4. Block #17874714: The proposal was set to be enacted at this block by Scheduler in the next treasury spending period. However, with the preimage being unnoted prematurely, the system was left with just a hash and no accompanying instructions for enactment.

Big thanks to Raul for his assistance in identifying the source of this error. 

In light of the unsuccessful enactment of the previously approved proposal, it has been decided to resubmit the proposal as a new referendum. All parts of the proposal stayed the same except the update of KSM EMA7 to $25.52.

The failure in enactment was due to an oversight on my part, and I take full responsibility for this mistake. I kindly request the community's continued support as we resubmit the proposal. 



[Full proposal](https://github.com/CoinStudioDOT/OpenGov/blob/c850956f861c062a2124ab1224b248fe459de582/Documents/%23203%20OpenCommunity%20Governance%20Proposal.pdf)



OpenCommunity Governance

Dear community,

Based on the recent experience with the increasing number of treasury proposals, I am presenting the following proposal aiming to improve the Governance 2.0 experience through a series of referenda proposal audits.

[The original discussion.](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/2138)

**Governance 2.0 Referenda Audits**

**1. Problem**

Since the launch of Governance 2.0 on Kusama I spent many hours reading, reviewing, and trying to understand many treasury discussions and proposals. I try my best to understand every proposal before forming an opinion and voting. For the majority of the proposals, I try to provide feedback to the proposer explaining the reasons for either supporting or rejecting the proposal. So far I feel like proposals are sort of a wild game at the moment.

Most proposals are not very well structured, lack information, and include budgets that seem very hard to defend. Proposals can also be very diverse with a focus on different areas that not everyone can be familiar with. For all these reasons it is significantly time-consuming for voters to truly understand the proposal and cast an educated vote on it.

With the given time constraints, it is not surprising that proposals are receiving very little or no feedback at all. The feedback is often provided in a free form and is not always clear and precise. Such insufficient information has little use for other voters. It provides low assurance to other community members that the reviewer has objectively formed an objective opinion on the presented proposals.

**2. Available solutions**

The official Polkadot treasury page, Kusama and Polkadot Wiki provide a good source of information and documentation. Most of this information and guidelines explain the “old” Governance 1.0 system or in other words, it relates to the very specific set of proposal reviewers – Councilors. With the Governance 2.0 introduction, the set of reviewers dramatically increased from a limited set of councilors to a much wider Dotsama community. For this reason, all the documentation needs to be adjusted so it can be better presented to the wider audience where not everyone needs to be an expert in the field to have a good understanding of the proposal content.

**3. Proposal Solution**

This proposal aims to create a clear and precise framework for creating and presenting the proposals. This framework is not meant to be a strict requirement but more as a set of guidelines for the proposers to successfully present their project and increase their chance to defend the proposal and win community approval.

As the counterpart to the proposal framework, the equally important audit framework will be created as guidance for the reviewers. This audit aims to provide more precise feedback to the proposer and give a sufficient and educated review that can be later used by other voters to form their opinion on the proposal.

In a young system like this, creating these guidelines is simply not enough. To create a better treasury proposal system, a great level of engagement is required. For this reason, I propose a temporary Project manager/auditor role for a period of 3 months. The main task of the PM is to actively follow the governance tracks, objectively check and audit the proposal content according to the proposal guidelines and produce and publish the audit according to the created framework. The task of the PM is to be available to the community and gather feedback and accordingly adjust the framework.

**4. Key deliverables:**

Proposal template – a document with predefined categories and as many pre-filled and guided data (examples) as possible.

Feedback template – directly related to the proposal template. Possible checklist for each category with additional room for the feedback

Produce a minimum of 30 one-page audits with included feedback on active treasury proposals or proposal discussions

**5. Key objectives/ Success criteria**

Reduce the time required to write a detailed and comprehensive proposal – measured by the proposal owner's feedback

Higher community involvement in the governance – measured by the number of members involved in discussions, number of provided feedback, and number of interactions with one-page reviews

All these points are taken from the full proposal document.

[Full proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Ze8Z_f9Pa3kjALGnhu-58DNdajFQ74ONbuDeWcaFoU/edit#heading=h.5x0d5h95i329)






Governance 2.0 Referenda Audits


**Short description:** This proposal seeks to adjust validator minimum commission rate from 3% to 10%

**Project Category / Type:** Infrastructure

**Discussion date:** 23.11.2022.  [https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1993](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1993)

**Onchain publish date:** 26.01.2023.

**Governance referenda origin call:** staking_admin

**Context**

This proposal seeks to adjust the validator minimum commission rate and keeps all other staking configurations unchanged. In the current market (last several months) validator income from the minimum commission can cover less than 50% of the server rent costs. In order to maintain a sustainable environment and prevent the network degradation I am passing this proposal to onchain voting.

**Problem**

There were several topics regarding to the validator infrastructure expenses and operational costs that can be found here:

[https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1980](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1980)

[https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1306](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/1306)

A fully active validator operating at 3% commission can stand to earn:

(800/1000)* 4 * 30 * 0.03 = 2.88 KSM/month. 
With KSM priced at 34$ this equates to ~97.92 USD/month. 


**Proposal**

The proposed increase of minimum commission to 10% is trying to create a better and more sustainable network environment. With the numbers given above it is clear this is a small step towards this goal. Beside the commission, we would need KSM price to double and reach 50$ in order to earn ~480 USD/month which is still within the boundaries of operational costs.

With this proposal we are not influencing KSM inflation rate. We are asking the nominators to steer 1.36% of their staking APY towards the network, current returns are 18.88% and we anticipate it to be 17.52% all other factors being equal. We need to have a strong, reliable, secure and redundant blockchain network in order to process and secure multi million $ assets on it.


**Objectives**

Validator earnings and effects on staking rewards

A fully active validator operating at 3% commission can stand to earn 
(800/1000)* 4 * 30 * 0.03 = 2.88 KSM/month. : 

- with KSM priced at 25$ this equates to ~ 72.00 USD/month.

- with KSM priced at 34$ this equates to ~ 97.92 USD/month.

- with KSM priced at 50$ this equates to ~ 144.00 USD/month.

A fully active validator operating at 10% commission can stand to earn 
(800/1000)* 4 * 30 * 0.1 = 9.60 KSM/ month.

- with KSM priced at 25$ this equates to ~ 240.00 USD/month.

- with KSM priced at 34$ this equates to ~ 326.40 USD/month.

- with KSM priced at 50$ this equates to ~ 480.00 USD/month.


**Known constraints**

A significant change of KSM price can have a positive or a negative impact to the changes proposed. This proposal is not trying to set permanent staking parameters i.e.  In a scenario where KSM hits $100 anyone can start a new proposal to decrease the commission rate.



**[Full Proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sHrRM7wPv390GfhdPJeUKtfKD81X5ME5OIGrlDXqOXI/edit?usp=sharing)**

Kusama Validator minimum commission rate

Proposal: Additional Funding for Kusama System Parachain Collators
Bounty #20 KSM address: F3opxRbN5ZbjJNU513biNemEwi2QDYNACcNqzU68jHWZos2
Requested allocation: 4,116.24 KSM
This proposal seeks additional funding to support the operational status and provide a bounty top-up budget for collators on Kusama's System Parachains. Collators are essential for maintaining network security, decentralization, and performance. While previous referenda have successfully provided the necessary resources for their effective operation, additional funds are required to sustain these efforts and adapt to the expanding network demands.
This proposal will focus on the operational status and the bounty top-up budget, while more detailed information can be found under the bounty page and in earlier proposals, as listed below.
Full Proposal: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ufIt4xkI4lFmbbNnZ5uNp4fo9TQL4TjSjMSwQBL3cRI/edit?usp=sharing">Kusama System Parachains Collator Bounty #20 Top-Up Proposal - Jan/2025</a>
Previous System Chain Collator Related Referenda
The history of initiatives for Kusama System Chain collators dates back to early 2023. They have provided vital support for maintaining the network&rsquo;s stability, security, and decentralization.
<ul>
<li>Referendum 108: <a href="108">Establishing a Bounty for Collators of System Parachains, February 2023</a></li>
<li>Referendum 273: <a href="../post/2603">Bridge Hub Collator Compensation for June, July, and August, September 2023</a></li>
<li>Referendum 275: <a href="../post/2603">Bridge Hub Collator Compensation for June, July, and August, September 2023</a></li>
<li>Referendum 309: <a href="../post/2614">Kusama System Parachain Collators - Tips Q4/2023, November 2023</a></li>
<li>Referendum 322: <a href="322">Funding of Kusama System Parachain Collators, December 2023</a></li>
<li>Referendum 445: <a href="445">Bounty Top-Up of the System Parachain Collators Funding on Kusama, August 2024</a></li>
</ul>
Thank you!

Kusama System Parachains Collator Bounty #20 Top-Up Proposal - Jan/2025

Dear Kusama community,

This proposal is a continuation of [two previous milestone proposals ](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/2431)aimed at improving the Kusama OpenGov. The first proposal, Milestone 0, addressed OpenGov issues by developing a proposal and audit templates, initiating community discussions, and creating audit reports. The second proposal, Milestone 0.5, expanded the initial project by introducing the program to onboard additional proposal Auditors to enhance the decentralization and accuracy of score results.

In the previous period, we successfully completed a total of 54 audits, of which 19 were conducted by auditor candidates. One of the candidates, [Abdulbee](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/165) successfully completed the full auditor onboarding process being approved by Kusama community via an on-chain OpenGov tip.

**Problem**

An additional challenge in the current proposal evaluation process is the lack of constructive feedback during the discussion phase. To address this, appointed auditors will shift their focus by becoming more involved in the earlier phases of proposal development. This proactive approach will help proposers receive feedback and address potential weaknesses in their proposals before they are submitted onchain, giving them time to evaluate the feedback and make improvements.

**Proposal**

In **Milestone 1**, the primary objective is to continue onchain proposal audits, further expand Auditor tasks, continue collaboration with Polkassembly and introduce Auditor and Reviewer roles.

To ensure transparency and community involvement, our main goal is to transfer the Audit process to the Kusama community. This will be achieved by moving the Audit report work to the **post-paid OpenGov Tips,** where approved auditors will be compensated for their efforts. This approach ensures fairness and accountability in the process while keeping it open to the community.

In this proposal, we present the continuation of the Audit team work, with the aim to deliver Audit Reports for 60 treasury proposals over a period of 2 months. Our goal is to ensure that these proposals receive the evaluation and feedback they deserve. All work will be post-paid through self-submitted tips, with auditors initiating self-tips for their completed proposal audits. To avoid overloading the treasury track, a tip must cover compensation for a minimum of 5 audit reports.

To effectively evaluate project proposals using the Audit Template, it is essential to have an objective and standardized grading system in place. The following grading criteria are taken into consideration by the audit team when creating audit reports on proposals

![](https://i.ibb.co/PmkpVMD/Screenshot-2023-04-20-at-11-05-51.png)

**Milestone 1.5** is a continuation of [Referenda #67 - Proposal Extension](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcWEpT5C1u4dNUH4EWCaJfpQ4qOGV19AMXPwj8qSWeY/edit#heading=h.e126djyh5msy) with the goal to continue education and onboarding of additional community auditors. 

All details can be found in the [Full proposal.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12dT6RWkiChINTADRnQQuYHLZK_coDPdq/view?usp=sharing)

Proposal [Discussion topic](https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/2562)


Thank you!