We have also made some updates to our voting principles, please check at the end of this tweet!
So, last week, PolkaWorld was focused on 16 proposals:
🔸 12 from Polkadot (9 have completed voting, 3 are still under evaluation)
🔸 4 from Kusama
Here are our voting results and the reasons behind them:
❌Kusama #540: Please read a16zcrypto.com/posts/article/… (WFC)
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/540
🔻 Vote: Against
Governance decisions related to the Kabocha network should be made by the Kabocha community itself, rather than Kusama.
❌Kusama #542: Support Thirdweb infrastructure for 24 months (3,981 KSM)
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/542#2
🔻 Vote: Against
Tools may be useful, but the team could access Thirdweb for free. Payment reasons are unclear.
❌Kusama #543: Reduce the number of validators from 1000 to 500 (WFC)
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/543#4
🔻 Vote: Against
While it helps reduce inflation, limiting the number of validators may affect the long-term scalability of the network. A broader community discussion is needed.
❌Kusama #548: Coretime is not a viable revenue model (WFC)
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/548#2
🔻 Vote: Against
We welcome relevant discussions, but WFC should propose specific solutions rather than just express vague opinions. It is recommended to post on the forum first before proceeding to on-chain voting.
❌Polkadot #1617: DAVOS project – AI delegated assistant (25,000 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1617…
🔻 Vote: Against
Team information cannot be verified, lacks a roadmap, overly relies on LLM, and has an hourly wage of up to $100 with no accountability mechanisms.
❌Polkadot #1625: Continued funding for ReactiveDOT (89,000 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1625…
🔻 Vote: Against
Hourly wage over $100, lack of transparency from the team.
❌Polkadot #1626: Rename $DOT to $JAM (WFC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1626…
🔻 Vote: Against
Renaming cannot solve cognitive issues, but may erase years of community accumulation. This is not the correct way for Polkadot to evolve.
❌Polkadot #1627: Polkadot Art Space – Tricycle Gallery (34,000 USDT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1627…
🔻 Vote: Against
The idea is good, but the return rate is low, the on-chain conversion path is unclear, and the cost is high, making it unsuitable for treasury funding.
✅Polkadot #1630: Institutional meeting support (500 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1630…
🟢 Vote: Support
Used to introduce Polkadot at an event with a bank in Venezuela, the amount is reasonable.
❌Polkadot #1631: Pixelproof – Decentralized photo application (575,000 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1631…
🔻 Vote: Against
No urgent need, weak team information, unclear budget, treasury resources should not be invested in such projects.
❌Polkadot #1633: Reclaim Centrifuge treasury assets (WFC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1633…
🔻 Vote: Against
Divestment requires clear reasons; anonymous proposals lack credibility.
❌Polkadot #1634: Collaboration with Politecnico di Milano (59,240 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1634…
🔻 Vote: Against
Unclear outcomes, high uncertainty, lack of execution details and cost breakdown, and team situation also needs clarification.
✅Polkadot #1635: Hiring ecosystem talent leader (130,000 USDC + 3,000 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1635…
🟢 Vote: Support
We recognize the value of this role in talent matching, and the team has addressed our concerns, including salary standards, clear responsibilities, and identifying gaps in ecosystem talent.
——————————
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to share PolkaWorld's current voting principles. Although we expressed some basic concepts when applying for the fourth DV phase, our thoughts have been evolving as we participate in OpenGov and review a large number of proposals.
However, our core goal has always remained unchanged:
It is to establish a more long-term funding pool for Polkadot DAO and help more people join Polkadot DAO.
Here are the two key principles we currently uphold:
1. The treasury is increasingly playing the role of an investor. Therefore, we believe that any proposal applying for funding should clearly articulate how it will bring 'returns' to the treasury.
This means we will oppose any commercial projects that do not provide a feedback mechanism.
2. There is a huge disparity in the hourly wage of current proposals, with discussions ranging from $20 to $150 taking place for some time. We realize this is a very important issue and a currently difficult problem; the community has yet to establish a reasonable mechanism for setting salary standards and screening and retaining talent.
But this does not mean that we have found problems and choose to ignore them.
Thus, before any standards and mechanisms are established, we will reject any proposals with hourly wages exceeding $100. We also call on proposers to disclose detailed information about team members.
Finally, we hope that the proposers we have opposed can understand our thoughts; PolkaWorld does not oppose just for the sake of opposing, nor is it specifically targeting any proposal.
We hope to reduce 'lobbying' with gradually established rules and increase transparency and trust, as that is the purpose of the rules.
Thank you all 🩷
As always, a single NAY is not a rejection of the team, but a better starting point!