Do you still think Kusama is just Polkadot's "test chain"? Then you may have missed a quiet revolution recently - a community proposal with an allocation of up to 10 million DOTs is pushing Kusama to a new stage of independent evolution.
These DOTs will not be poured out overnight, but will be injected into art, ZK, privacy, human identity and other incentive bounties in a gradual way “like a mother bird feeding her chicks”, aiming to give birth to a batch of truly usable on-chain experiments.
In this interview, Bill takes us into the internal perspective of this ecological redesign. From the exquisite rhythm of the bounty mechanism to the ambitious blueprint of Kusama becoming a "cultural blockchain", it reveals an independent path different from Polkadot.
This article is the second part of Bill's recent interview, and the main content includes:
Allocate 10 million DOT to support the development of the Kusama network (Art and Social Experiments, ZK and Privacy, Proof of Personhood PoP)
Where OpenGov urgently needs to change
Thoughts on changing the DOT economic model
Previous article (Major Adjustment of Web3 Foundation: Bill Laboon Appointed Vice President of Ecosystem, Unified Strategic Layout, and Launched Polkadot Agents Program!)
Continue reading for more!
Allocate 10 million DOT to support the development of the Kusama network
Jay: Speaking of OpenGov, you actually have another big move recently: fulfilling the promise of allocating 1% of the total DOT supply, right?
Bill: That's right. We proposed to allocate 1% of the genesis total, which is about ten million DOTs now, to support the development of the Kusama network and strengthen the collaboration between Kusama and Polkadot.
Jay: The support rate for this proposal seems to be close to 100%?
Bill: Yes, it's probably 99 point something, there are always one or two reservations, haha. But overall, community support is very high.
Jay: This proposal was probably proposed around March, right? Such a large amount of funds transfer does take time to promote.
You have also recently launched three new bounties on Kusama: Art and Social Experiments, Zero-Knowledge and Advanced Cryptography, and "Proof of Personhood". These are all heavyweight topics. These bounties have not been funded yet, right? Will they be funded with DOT in the future? How to operate?
Bill: This is a very good question. Technically, currently the bounty accounts on the Kusama chain can only receive native tokens, which is KSM, and cannot directly hold DOT.
Jay: But you should launch a new bounty module later, right?
Bill: Yes, we are currently developing a new Bounty module (Bounty Pallet). Once it is launched, we can directly fund bounties with DOT. But before that, we don't want to wait any longer, so we decided to start things up first - in fact, we officially announced it yesterday.
I also mentioned in the AAG program before that I actually built these bounty projects a long time ago, just waiting for the right time.
The participants of these three bounties will receive DOT as a reward in the future. The current temporary plan is that we can symbolically send a small amount of KSM funds on-chain as a signal, and the Web3 Foundation will issue DOT of equal value off-chain according to the size of this fund.
Currently, those ten million DOTs are still in the Web3 Foundation's account, and will be gradually injected into the bounty mechanism in the future. We will not release all of them at once, but will start with tens of thousands of DOTs per month, and gradually increase to hundreds of thousands depending on the situation. The reason for this pace is very simple - this is a huge resource investment, and we want to ensure that it does not become a "one-time blood transfusion", but a sustainable ecological incentive mechanism.
I like to use “bird learning to fly” as an analogy: the mother bird will not stuff 500 worms into the chick’s mouth at once and leave it alone, but will gradually provide more food as the chick grows until they can fly on their own. We have the same idea: pilot, observe, adjust, and ensure that the bounty truly activates the ecosystem instead of being used up and discarded.
Art and Social Experiments
Jay: That's so cool! What are your expectations for the "Art and Social Experiments" section? Are there any directions or ideas that you particularly want to see?
Bill: I do have a lot of ideas in my mind, but I'm actually more curious about what points I haven't thought of that everyone will come up with. Because there are always some ideas that I didn't expect at all.
Speaking of "art", everyone's first reaction is often images and NFTs, which is of course correct, but for me, that's just the most basic layer. I don't think these contents are boring, they are just too straightforward.
I have always been particularly interested in generative art. For example, I know that there is an artist called Arcane on KodaDot, and he has created some very cool generative works. This type of art, especially experimental projects that interact with the real world, excites me more.
I've seen some great ideas in the Bitcoin ecosystem before: like physical display boards that can show the mempool status or block changes in real time. This way of visualizing on-chain data is really attractive. I really hope to see similar attempts on Kusama.
Jay: Yes, like Kukabi is trying to convert blockchain data into music and visual content, which is very cool.
Bill: Yes! This is what I think of as "art" - not only expression, but also a medium for interacting with technology and society. Kusama itself is an open experimental platform, not just in art, there is also a lot of room for exploration in social experiments.
In fact, we have done many social experiments on Kusama, and some of them have received quite good responses. For example, the "Social Recovery" mechanism is a very typical social structure experiment. You can preset a few people you trust, and if you lose your private key one day, they can help you recover your account together.
There is also “Kappa Sigma Mu”, also known as “human blockchain”, I am one of them myself.
The core concept of Kappa Sigma Mu is that each member is a continuation of the "certification" of the previous member, forming a chain-like trust structure, and will also receive a symbolic amount of KSM reward. There are now more than 200 members, but I think there is still a lot of room for expansion in this experiment, which can evolve into richer community interaction and social mechanisms.
ZK and Privacy
Jay: Gavin also specifically mentioned ZK at this conference.
Bill: We actually paid attention to zero-knowledge proofs early on, but its biggest problem is the high computational cost. Currently, the Polkadot mainnet uses Elves (ELP mechanism), which is not ZK, but it is very strong in terms of security, and at the same time consumes less computing resources and runs more efficiently.
Its principle is somewhat similar to the verification logic of optimistic rollup or parallel chains - only a part of the nodes verify, and then it is confirmed through the full network consensus. This method is mathematically safe and also supports sharding.
Of course, ZK itself also has unique advantages. For example, it can achieve 100% credible proof while protecting user privacy and not exposing data content.
Although ZK has not been officially adopted on the Polkadot mainnet yet, we believe that this direction is very worth exploring. Especially in an experimental environment like Kusama, we can experiment more freely, including emerging technologies such as ZK, quantum resistance, and artificial intelligence.
We hope to provide these cutting-edge technologies with a platform where they can freely develop based on the Polkadot architecture. Kusama was originally created for experimentation. Even if some functions will not be directly launched on the Polkadot mainnet in the future, they can be incubated and verified here to accumulate experience for the future.
This is the deeper meaning of our launch of this referendum: Kusama is no longer just Polkadot's "canary network", but a chain with an independent identity.
We hope it can form a true differentiation - not only at the technical level, but also at the cultural and psychological level. This is easily overlooked, but I think the cultural identity and spiritual value of the blockchain are equally important. Kusama should have its own unique style, and not just be an appendage of Polkadot.
So, this is actually a win-win situation: Polkadot benefits from it, and the technology is verified and expanded; Kusama can also truly go its own way and develop an independent ecology and cultural positioning.
Jay: You have also started paying attention to privacy-related topics recently, right? Are you also planning to conduct some privacy technology experiments on the blockchain?
Bill: Yes, privacy is indeed a direction that Kusama wants to focus on promoting next. Although there are some privacy-related applications on Polkadot, I found that the Kusama community actually pays more attention to privacy.
For example, the Integritee project, its Incognitee sub-plan is a good example, and there are other projects that are exploring. We have noticed that many developers and teams interested in privacy technology are actually inclined to conduct experiments on Kusama, and a natural overlapping ecosystem has formed between them.
I have actually talked to many teams privately, and they are preparing to apply for some funding proposals related to privacy, many of which are very interesting. Kusama can completely become a fertile ground for supporting such projects.
Proof of Personhood PoP
Jay: Then let's talk about the last topic - "Proof of Personhood". This direction seems to have started to take off recently, and Gav also mentioned that the related App is expected to be launched this year. The most interesting thing is that it is not based on on-chain transaction records to determine airdrop qualifications, but based on whether you can prove that you are a real independent individual. This sounds really cool! But this system seems to be built directly on Polkadot, will Kusama be skipped?
Bill: The specific technical details have not been completely determined yet. However, considering that Polkadot and Kusama share the same technology stack, Kusama can completely access this proof of personhood system, and even extend its own gameplay based on it.
Many possible use cases have already emerged in my mind, such as building a completely new on-chain identity system, social mechanism, or even governance tools around this App. Just as the Technical Fellowship also makes technical decisions on Kusama affairs at the same time, although the two chains are independent, the connection between them is actually very close.
Moreover, this type of technology may also inspire unique alternative solutions for Kusama. For example, Integritee and its Pointer project are already trying to build a "proof of personhood protocol through offline rituals". This is a very Kusama-style route: emphasizing experimentation and interactive experience. Who says that personhood verification can only rely on Apps and online interaction?
Jay: Indeed, we are actually far from reaching the stage of "standard determination", which is the best time to experiment boldly.
Bill: Totally agree. Yesterday I was also asked a question in my speech: "Who do you think has the best on-chain governance?" I said at the time - it's too early to make a judgment.
I think we are now in a “Cambrian period of blockchain”, just like in the early stages of biological evolution, various strange species are constantly appearing, some of which die out before long, such as trilobites; but there are also some, such as horseshoe crabs and jellyfish, that are still active after hundreds of millions of years.
Whether it is on-chain governance or proof of personhood, many of the things we are doing now are still in the experimental stage. This industry often produces some "extremists" who always think they have found the ultimate solution, such as "only Bitcoin is orthodox" or "our chain is the real future". But this mentality is actually very dangerous.
The reason why I like Polkadot is because it has admitted one thing from the beginning: we don't know what the future will look like. We can be very smart and design very well, but no one is better at predicting the future than "evolution". So Polkadot is designed to be a system that can constantly evolve. It is not just a protocol, but an adaptive structure.
Speaking of proof of personhood, it's actually the same - we need to constantly adjust the direction through practice, trial and error, and various attempts. Gavin has proposed many ideas, such as using tattoos, App interaction, and offline authentication to achieve identity verification. Each method may lead to a different path.
Jay: Yes, he also mentioned a way to complete verification "by interacting with the system through an App", which also sounds very futuristic.
Bill: Yes, interactive verification is indeed an interesting direction. In fact, there are currently so many possibilities that it is difficult for us to predict in advance which method is the "optimal solution". And you can never predict the side effects of various mechanisms.
Many times, the success of technology really depends on “luck”. I recommend you listen to a podcast called Advent of Computing, which talks about the early history of computer development. I especially like their stories about those “accidental moments in the fate of technology”.
For example, the QWERTY keyboard we use today was originally designed to prevent typewriters from jamming; another example is that 8086 became the mainstream processor, not because it was the strongest, but because it was "just adopted", and the later 286 and 386 had to be compatible with it, gradually becoming the de facto standard.
The development of blockchain is also like this. Although we often say that we are still in the "early stage", this is not an excuse, but a fact - Bitcoin has only been around for 16 years, we are still exploring, far from being finalized, and we can't assume that we have found the "ultimate answer".
Jay: Speaking of "luck", that means you have to make enough attempts to have a chance to stumble upon that one "good luck". If you only stare at one plan, you may miss the opportunity.
Bill: Exactly. If you look at those projects that can truly survive for ten or fifteen years, almost none of them follow the path of "I have a great idea, then slowly realize it, and finally become a god in one battle". More success actually comes from a demo temporarily put together during a hackathon weekend, which unexpectedly becomes popular.
99% of experiments will fail, but the remaining 1% of success may be enough to change the entire industry. This is the fundamental reason why we want to support experimentation and encourage diversity.
Jay: And for proof of personhood, once a verifiable individual identity system is established, there are too many things that can be done later. We can build completely new social logic, game models, and governance systems... This is actually closely related to OpenGov.
Gavin has been saying that OpenGov is only the first stage of governance experiment, and more consensus mechanisms can be explored in the future, such as "one person one vote", reputation-based voting, and so on. And these new ways of playing often require on-chain identity as a prerequisite.
Where OpenGov urgently needs to change
Jay: But even today, without proof of personhood, we can actually improve OpenGov. There are still many things worth optimizing. So I would like to ask you to talk about: what do you think are the two or three points that OpenGov most urgently needs to improve? What are your preliminary ideas or observations?
Bill: Of course, I think there are a few problems that can be solved relatively quickly.
The first problem is the lack of strategic coordination.
The current ecosystem is a bit "doing their own thing". We often see an individual or team having a good idea and submitting a proposal directly. However, these proposals lack connection and unified goals or budget coordination, which makes the entire governance lack a sense of direction.
The second problem is governance fatigue.
There are too many referendums going on on OpenGov at the same time. Even people like me who have been involved in governance for a long time and closely follow the development of the ecosystem cannot keep up with all of them.
Jay: It feels like participating in OpenGov is becoming a full-time job, and it really needs someone to follow up.
Bill: That's right. The problem is that we can't expect every community member to spend full-time time participating in governance, which is unrealistic. So we have to find a way to reduce the governance burden and improve governance efficiency at the same time.
For example, people like Alice und Bob and Tommy are already doing budget analysis work, which is a good attempt. Including you also participated in the RFP (Request For Proposal) mechanism, which transforms governance from "passively receiving proposals" to "actively expressing needs", which is also a directional improvement.
I think a stronger coordination mechanism should be established in the future. It's not about going back to the previous "Council" governance, but we need some kind of decentralized governance axis, a consensus framework, where everyone knows where the goal is, and then proposes strategies through channels such as "Wish for Change", which are executed by the community.
These are just preliminary ideas now, but identifying the problem itself is the first step forward.
Jay: Speaking of governance fatigue, I'm quite interested in a plan recently: increasing the deposit requirements for submitting proposals. There is a "Wish for Change" proposal on Kusama that is about to pass. The core mechanism is: if your proposal is not passed, the submission deposit will be destroyed, which sounds quite ruthless.
Bill: It is indeed quite strict, but I think this is very reasonable. At least, if a proposal has not even received support for the "decision deposit", then the submission deposit should not be returned. The current threshold is too low, which leads to many low-quality proposals "spamming", increasing noise.
The original design intention was correct, to allow people without enough funds to complete the proposal with the help of the community. But the reality is that tools like Polkassembly and Subsquare will display all proposals, so even proposals without any community foundation will occupy visible space and interfere with truly important proposals.
This proposal on Kusama suggests raising the submission deposit to 3.333 KSM, which is about 50 US dollars, I think it's quite reasonable.
Jay: Yes, if you really have a good idea but can't afford the deposit, you can first post in the forum to seek support, and someone will always be willing to help.
Bill: That's right, raising the threshold can not only reduce governance fatigue, but also make good proposals easier to stand out.
In addition, I also suggest setting up a “governance window” for referendums and treasury proposals, such as limiting the proposal opening time to monthly or quarterly, and leaving the rest of the time for the community to settle down and rest.
Another direction is to decentralize more governance rights to the bounty mechanism (Bounties). Many things still have to go through treasury proposals, but in fact, matters such as Meetups, events, and marketing can be promoted more flexibly through the bounty mechanism.
Jay: Yes, the bounty mechanism has indeed matured a lot in the past two years, especially Meetup and event bounties have been widely adopted.
Bill: Yes. We also see that the bounty system itself is constantly iterating. Currently, the Bounty Pallet is adjusting a mechanism, such as the curator list needing to be updated every 90 days. Although I can't recall what this mechanism is called at the moment, it is indeed being optimized.
Although we have made progress on the bounty mechanism, major problems such as governance fatigue and user thresholds still exist. We are also trying to alleviate this problem from multiple angles, such as:
AAG provides an open discussion space;
PolkaAssembly and SubSquare have launched AI summary functions to help everyone quickly understand the key points of the proposal;
Delegation mechanism has also been launched.
Of course, the decentralized voice (DV) mechanism is also one of the governance innovations. Although it sometimes causes controversy, it has indeed increased community participation and helped to share the governance pressure.
The next round of DV member list will be announced soon. I can't reveal too many details now, but I can share two directions that have basically formed a consensus:
The problem of DV's high weight will be corrected, a lightweight version of the DV plan will be introduced, and its voting influence will be moderately reduced;
It is hoped that more field experts will be introduced to make DV more professional and diverse.
Jay: Yes, the key is not to vote a lot, but to express valuable opinions on key issues.
Bill: That's right. For example, some people are very professional on certain issues, but unfortunately the current governance mechanism cannot achieve "delegation by topic", and it is not technically supported.
But we can take a step back and select some members who are active in a certain field and have a generally non-extreme stance, and give them a moderate amount of delegated DOT. This mechanism will not have any remuneration, and we will not impose any tasks on them. We just hope that they will have a greater voice.
Currently, DV's total voting power is about 6 million DOTs, which accounts for a considerable proportion of the entire governance. This indeed needs to be adjusted to reduce the weight and increase flexibility, which is the main direction at present.
Jay: But there is a reality that since the last discussion, ChaosDAO has received a lot of delegation. If the overall weight of DV is reduced, will the check and balance on ChaosDAO still be there? Will you consider this factor comprehensively?
Bill: This is indeed a problem that needs to be balanced. The reason why ChaosDAO can get so many delegations is because they have made decisions that are recognized by the community. But we don't want OpenGov to eventually become "ChaosGov", right?
But I want to say that they have won trust and support based on their abilities, which is positive. The optimization of the governance mechanism is not to limit the growth of excellent people, but to avoid systemic biases and encourage more diverse participation.
Thoughts on changing the DOT economic model
Jay: Before we end, I would like to hear your opinion on the economic reform plan proposed by Gavin at the Web3 Summit. He threw out a lot of heavy ideas this time. Although he said that these are just directions for thinking and do not represent the final decision, "step change inflation" seems to have been widely supported, and the call for "cap supply" is also getting louder. What do you think?
Bill: First of all, I must say that the content he mentioned in his speech is very extensive, not just these two points.
Jay: Yes, like validator revenue standardization, reducing network operating costs, and so on, the content is very rich.
Bill: Yes, and what he mentioned is more "the possibilities we are exploring" rather than "we are going to do this immediately". For example, I have noticed that many people support the idea of setting a total supply cap. Some people have suggested setting the total amount of DOT at 3.14 billion (π × 10⁹), and some people have even more exaggeratedly suggested setting it to a large number on the "E billion" level - meaning an extremely large order of magnitude.
As for the inflation issue, most people agree that the current inflation rate may indeed be too high, exceeding the actual security needs of the network. In fact, we have already reduced the inflation rate once before. Whether we should further reduce it now, I personally hope to hear an in-depth analysis from the Web3 Foundation's internal economists.
Overall, I agree with the direction proposed by Gavin. The data he showed in his speech basically matches what we usually observe: we have paid a considerable cost for network security, which is of course reasonable, and we need a reliable system; but a more stable and sustainable economic structure is more critical. We must think about whether there is a more efficient and reasonable way to ensure network security.
PolkaWorld Note: As of the publication of this article, the Polkadot community has officially proposed off-chain voting - fixing the total amount of DOT and gradually reducing inflation in three plans. View and vote here (The proposal to reduce DOT inflation is finally here! Can cutting inflation and sealing the total amount reverse the decline? It depends on this vote!)
Jay: Yes, the core question is: whether the resources we invest are matched with the returns.
Bill: That's right. For example, I have reservations about the proposal of "fixed income for validators". Because once it becomes a fixed income, how much motivation will validators have to actively participate? Can they still maintain "alignment of interests" with the network? These need to be carefully considered.
Jay: I was also a little shocked by this point. The idea of "issuing rewards with stablecoins" is also quite novel.
Bill: Yes, this is an interesting idea. If the reward mechanism is changed to issue stablecoins, it can indeed reduce the tax burden on users and enhance financial predictability. But at the same time, there is less binding relationship with native tokens. Issuing rewards with DOT, although it may bring tax pressure, also means that your long-term interests are linked to the network - this is an important connection psychologically.
In short, these ideas are worth discussing, but I haven't studied them in depth and I don't dare to say which one is the "best innovation". But back to the core concept we mentioned repeatedly before: Polkadot's spirit has always been to embrace evolution. Instead of sticking to the status quo, it is better to have an open mind and give it a try.
Jay: Well said. You actually want to express this point: our problems are real and do need to be solved, but how to solve them still requires more discussion and experimentation. But in any case, the process of exploration itself is very worthwhile.
Bill: Totally agree.
Jay: Awesome. Bill, thank you very much for visiting again today, and thank you for your efforts for the development of the network. Whether it is in governance, community building, or ecological coordination, your efforts are visible to everyone. I am very happy to work with you in this ecology. Thank you!
Bill: I am also very happy to be back on the show, thank you very much for your invitation. I look forward to continuing to work together in the community, thank you, goodbye!
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHyHWV51GE