Threshold
Dear Coin,
This was a good experiment that I supported with each proposal on Kusama. However, having seen the results I don't think this initiative is adding any value. Proposals are still of very poor quality and voting is independent of 'audit score'. I appreciate that the auditors are putting forward an effort but it is imo not sustainable or an initiative I would continue to support.
What might be more sustainable is a rating system built into Subsquare and or Polkassembly. Something that's not too overwhelming but gives the proposer a feel of particular pain points with the proposal.
I continue to extend my respect to yourself and Abdulbee for all the good efforts you've delivered in the past. If this is funding for a hard-stop I would reconsider my vote. I am only one vote in a sea of larger voters, I wish you all the best.
Regards,
Will | Paradox
Awesome to see such a useful community member take the first step in writing up the first referendum on opengov on polkadot!
Personally I have loved the passion + utility of this project, and would be glad to support it.
I do also echo the sentiment of Will above - for truly getting utility of this project, I would like to see a clearer path to integration with the governance frontends that most people use. Thats the 0 --> 1 change thats incredibly significant.
I would also want to end with a question: What has changed compared to Kusama where the audits are paid via small bounties per audit vs. now getting paid upfront?
Dear Will | Paradox,
I appreciate your feedback, and I understand your concerns. Education, as you know, is a long-term process, and it's not always easy to see immediate results. However, I want to say that we have already seen some progress. Several proposers have started to utilize our proposal document template, and we've observed that their proposals are clearer and more structured. This is a positive trend that we believe will continue to grow as more people start to use it.
In terms of the audit scores, you are correct that voting is independent of these scores. But our aim with the audits is not to dictate voting, but to provide feedback to improve the proposal context that could assist voters in their decision-making process.
As for your suggestion of a rating system integrated into Subsquare or Polkassembly, I agree that it would be an excellent feature. In fact, we are currently in ongoing collaborations to incorporate audit reports into Polkassembly, a step in the direction you mentioned. This collaboration extends to other related materials such as including AAG videos in treasury proposals. You can see this under the Audit tab above (example). As for additional user interaction options, while it's too early to go into specifics, we're open to exploring this in the future.
Thank you for your ongoing support and understanding. All feedback is incredibly valuable to us as it helps us improve and adapt our initiative to better serve the community.
Kind regards,
CS
Thank you for your kind words and support.
To answer the question of integration with governance frontends, I agree with it as it is a significant step forward that we're actively working on. You may have noticed the newly added 'Audit' tab on Polkassembly, where all content related to treasury proposals is now visible. This includes audit reports, community-created content, and AAG videos. This content is pulled from a jointly administrated GitHub repository, which is open for everyone to contribute to and utilize. It's an ongoing process, and we're excited to see it evolve. Integration example.
As for your question about payment, this proposal does indeed include payment upfront for 20 audits per auditor. The only reason behind this approach is to help bootstrap the initiative on the Polkadot network. After these initial audits, we intend to revert to the same funding model used in Kusama, with audits paid via tips.
Thank you again for your constructive comments and questions. We appreciate your engagement and interest in this project.
Best regards,
CS
test
Edited