- 0.0%
- 0.0%
- 0.0%
Threshold
Dear proposers,
Here is a list of concerns on which the community would highly appreciate a feedback.
Thank you so much in advance!
- What are the lesson learnt from this bounty's past failures?
- This scheme has a legend "no pay" but there's literally no one tagged with it. Why?
- How many hours per paid members are expected to be spent each month? Please provide estimates
- Some rates seem inappropriate compared to skill fit for the job, how do you explain that?
- Ethics: it is public knowledge that some members have notoriously disrespected ethic rules in the past. How do you proceed to enforce these rules, especially regarding conflict of interests?
- What will be the structure of unethical behavior review process? What can trigger this review process? Self evaluation or anything else?
- What will be the process to seek and evaluate competition between contractors?
- There is one curator missing in the letters of intent, who is this person and what are his intentions?
To kickstart this conversation we propose to first touch some on the items that caught our attention first.
First it is the projected amount spent proportional to the treasury. If we really agree that 10% of treasury income is to be spent on marketing (the proposed treasury income on a WFC vote and not enacted still). We need to remember that other successful independent marketing efforts like CultureDOT campaigns (now a curator), Coinmarketcap, Virtune, the Kusamarian, Wagmedia, Inter Miami, Conor Daly and others happened outside the marketing bounty so said expenditures must also be included into this 10% figure in order to consider it a fair 10%. So, why should this 10% of treasury income be exclusively spent through the marketing bounty? - while exceeding it with other marketing efforts outside of it.
Second, despite of the increased text in this referendum compared to the previous bounty refills, it seems like it also lacks concrete information on what exactly these funds are going to be spent on. The previous bounty, in our view, spent way too much on unnecessary and impactful things because it simply didn't have a plan and advertisement options are nearly endless. Which is why it rather spent on the go as "opportunities arose". Crypto advertisement is one of those potential expenditures where you can spend an infinite amount of money because there is a nearly infinite amount of spending venues. Is there a plan on what these funds are going to be spent? Is it going to KOLs? to advertisement? to events? what agencies are interested? how much will go to agencies? So specifics are very helpful. Otherwise, we won't know what these funds are meant to be spent on.
Third. The part where "this allocation can be increased in the future, subject to the agreement of token holders." is something we experienced in the previous bounty where expenditures ballooned from an initial 90k DOT meant to last for months to 500k DOT less than monthly - within months. What measures will you take so that this precise scenario doesn't happen again.
Fourth, The marketing bounty was used as a fail-back for some referenda that weren't approved or referenda that wouldn't be approved but they were added to the marketing bounty regardless. Many with bad results like 401. How will this team address this situation?
Fifth and finally, this marketing bounty was mostly focused on advertisement for the masses. We now have some renewed efforts to reach enterprises through b2b marketing and targeted outreach, planning and so on. Is there any plan to integrate this bounty with BD plans, B2B efforts, more directed outreach instead of going after retail and raw brand exposure?
Having a figure, considered by many to be the biggest scammer in Polkadot, involved in your bounty will only further alienate the community and continue to damage DOT's reputation.
This will likely cause the price to drop even further.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
Hi
Voted Nay
200,000 DOTs for six months looks like a super bullish request, but unfortunately, we are in the bear market.
Also, this request should be done in stables.
Thank you for your replies.
At the moment we believe that this renewed proposal for marketing doesn't guarantee enough improvements compared to the predecessor as the structure seems to be the same and expenditure will also continue to be elevated given that marketing costs will be de-facto enacted to 10% mentioned on the original post only with the approval of the current referendum (1166), no further wish-for-change referendum required. In short, the amount asked at the moment in addition to the centralization of efforts are the main risks that this proposal has, because there are no fail-backs mechanisms and oversight that guarantee this bounty avoids the same problems as the predecessor. Therefore we will continue voting against this Marketing 2.0 referendum.
Into the details.
About the first answer, we consider a deep negative to fix this proposal at around 10% of the income regardless of the the price of DOT (if DOT goes parabolic it also means that the expenditure of this bounty will also go parabolic as it will remain fixed at 2.2M DOT p.a.). The argument that: "it's up to the tokenholders to determine whether 10% is valid or not either through a wish-for-change referendum or otherwise" which we consider false as approval and continuous payments to this bounty for that amount will already mean a +10% marketing expenditure enacted as a by-effect or by-law if you will. The reality is that this referendum alone will already occupy that amount without concessions so voting for this referendum implicitly means that marketing expenditure will be over 10% without a need for an explicit vote afterwards. Simply put, voting AYE on this referendum has the by-effect of already spending over that 10% on marketing first mentioned. On that basis alone many voters should take a better look at this referendum and see if that's what they want to enact on Polkadot or not.
About the second answer, we still consider to be lacking in information as we don't know what agencies, firms, what cross-chain efforts these funds will be spent on. Plans and concrete deliveries are still questions. So what are these specific plans is what we still ask, will the Marketing bounty continue to try price marketing, heavily marketing into retail or will most of it will go to other new types of it. Will parachains be included, will the wish-for-change referenda be the guideline for the marketing campaigns and brands, will new projects require for application directly or will they have to go through the wish-for-change referenda and so on.
The third and fourth answers are something we were hoping to see in the previous marketing bounty, hopefully this approach is something this and other marketing referenda can replicate or integrate. In that way we hope to see a more streamlined and cohesive approaches to funding the different referenda that appear.
And finally, the fifth answer, it doesn't cover much ground as it seems like there are no specifics on what or who these b2b marketing efforts will engage with if these marketing bounty 2.0 gets to pass, so it is a work in progress for now, it seems. Alternatively, a dedicated B2B effort should be enacted instead (Yet another reason to revisit that all encompassing 10%).
Considering that this is a remake of the marketing bounty some that has some efforts that are still needed or that are "good-to-have", we would like for this and other interested teams to scale down these mammoth efforts into more manageable and tangible pieces. Based on this and other recent marketing efforts not only on Polkadot but on other chains, managing smaller budgets and smaller and more concrete objectives with more focused efforts and teams seems like the most reasonable approach. It is becoming cleared to us that just like with business development efforts, marketing on Polkadot should also become less focused on a single management or oversight and rather a set of diverse and parallel efforts with different flavors and even geographies.
This marketing initiative may seem appealing at first glance, but it’s fundamentally flawed and could cost us a tremendous amount of money, time, and energy. There is no clear plan for how funds will be allocated, no vetted partners identified to execute the strategy, and no framework to track the contributions and effectiveness of team members. Simply put, this proposal is asking for a significant investment without offering a sound foundation to support it. If we move forward under these circumstances, we risk wasting resources on a project that is destined to fail.
An AYE vote at this stage means committing ourselves to a venture with no defined costs, no accountability measures, and no realistic path to success. This could drain our community’s resources without delivering any tangible results. Let’s not rush into something that isn’t ready, yet again.
I urge you to vote NAY and push for a more well-structured, thought-out plan that respects the community’s efforts and funds, with a clear path to success with chosen vendors, agencies, and team members well in advance.
Dear supporters, critics, and everyone in between,
I've been reading all your messages, and while I want to have a personal conversation with everyone, I try to cover your concerns with this statement and clarify what I want to achieve:
[Background & motivation]
I've been a huge Polkadot enthusiast since 2018, when I saw Gavin Woods in person at the first Web3 Summit in Berlin. Within one hour, he spun up a Parachain with a brand-new MacBook, at a time when ICOs of "Ethereum Killers" and Altcoin white papers were the distractions of the day.
For many early developers, this presentation was why they got into Polkadot; it cemented cutting-edge leadership, and many wanted to be part of its future. As well as for me.
(PS: my Proof of Presence
[My outreach/outbound activities]
**1. Developers **
With your Aye for the Marketing Bounty, I will focus on returning the enthusiasm from the early days, with the lessons learned, on doing great developer onboarding and retention.
To achieve that, I'd invest in building experiences for developers to feel like Gavin Wood by setting up a Parachain and other Polkadot unique use cases in ~10-60 minutes on their device.
Anyone, an ambassador at a conference or a community member at a meetup, could guide interested full-stack, rust, blockchain, and smart contract developers to this experience and get them hooked.
Of course, this solution would be launched with a 360° campaign (promotions, Ads, PR, paid social, etc.), offer long-term support for developers, and be further developed with input from the community. In fact, this idea came from a conversation with Bill Laboon about how he got into Polkadot.
(Lastly, I want to promote the "A Glass with Gav” channel. Why do they only have 90~ subscribers?)
(PS: back in 2018 I did an developer workshop on setting up your Polkadot Node with my then colleague "Chevdor", who then became an engineer at Parity)
2. Target markets
Besides developers, there are subgroups in the crypto market that should be approached first:
A) Creators specializing in utility NFTs (gamers and entertainment) show them how our tech allows them to realize their ideas, following the Mythical example.
B) Capital deployers (Degens, Whales, VCs & LPs), bring them to ecosystem projects like Asset Hub, Hydration, Centrifuge and Stellaswap (don't hang me for forgetting to list your project here).
C) Mainstream nerds: "Nerds love Polkadot" is a great claim and should be adopted by gamers, entertainment, tech enthusiasts, and other nerddoms. I'm not kidding when I say that I would love to see a Polkadot booth at a Dungeons & Ddragons fair, Magic the Gathering, or ComicCon and share our nerdiness with them.
3. Other Geographies
I've always been a community guy, believing in the bottom-up approach to organizing meetups. Therefore, I'm all for supporting the pioneers who develop our community in less established countries.
There's plenty of data from Chainalysis, statista, and other sources, that give direction on where to start. I'd prioritize those regions with ongoing activities touched by the JAM tour or other upcoming events in their area.
4. Lean Marketing: Test, measure, adjust, test again - Globally.
I agree with the community that new ideas must be tested, and unestablished actors must prove their work.
Hence, I'm for a "lean startup" approach for marketing activities, where we experiment and measure different campaigns and then open-source the material to allow teams from other regions to take the assets for their own needs. With this approach, we can test and validate agencies' work, gather insights into what works for which target audience in their respective region, and have more data for better expenditure decisions. When the market picks up again, and really have to shift gears.
[My values & priority as a curator]
I hope you better understand my position within the bounty. Let’s close on where I’m on the edge or where I draw a line.
A) KOLs-only-approach: I was a Growth and partner manager for KOLs in German-speaking markets in the past, and I know firsthand about the trickiness of when to employ them.
I am skeptical because I believe it’s not the right timing or shouldn’t be the only marketing tool at the current "OpenGov-led marketing build-up" stage.
With the lean-approach push, I would stress that we sign only monthly deals, make data-based decisions on which KOLs to work with, and prioritize partners with audiences that focus on archetypes, such as developers in the most promising geographies. Lastly, KOL content can be very engaging and I’m happy to see that the Pink Brain agency long-post was picked up by the TL;DR newsletter*. So, while we made mixed experiences with them, others get their education through such means (*Disclaimer: I don’t have any affiliation with them or have been in contact with them).
B) Sponsorships: Research about the effectiveness of brand deals tends to show a negative picture. Hence, I'm inclined not to prioritize such opportunities and would make an evidence-based decision. With the current trend, those proposals are anyway too big for our bounty…
C) Funding: I agree with the community regarding the excessive expenditures from the past. But with a more long-term view, I believe it’s the right step to equip the marketing bounty with the necessary funds now rather than later. Because we have to react fast and be ready once the market picks up, and keep up with the competition to not miss out on a potential headstart. In the meantime, I'm for keeping the funds and build, while getting ready with our network of community agents and agencies.
There’s more to write about, such as negotiating good deals, handling inbound requests, and selecting the right KPIs.
But let me finish by saying I want to serve the ecosystem and showcase the great work everyone does. And that the success of this bounty is as well depending on the good proposals of professional freelancers and agencies, that the community is sending our way.
My DMs on TG, Discord (both "Buythedip_Eric") and Matrix (ericki:matrix.org) are open.
Shame on all the AYEs. This is an absolutely terrible use of treasury funds. We will not forget this as a community. Sad times for Polkadot.
Can someone explain me why all the questions and concern receive no answer at all here?
Kudos to management for the community mindset.
With all the curators, They posses good skill and expertise in this field. I am sure that this bounty will succeed.
Once a wise man said "you will always fail if you learn nothing from the past".
Somehow, this proposal manages to do even worst.