KWIT - mobile payment wallet

Medium Spender
1mo ago
11 Comments
Rejected
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
334KUSDT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation4d
Attempts
0
Tally
2.7%Aye
50.0%Threshold
97.3%Nay
Aye
1.19MDOT
Nay
42.78MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support0.02%
306.73KDOT
Issuance
1.53BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

Echoing the comment made by Mario @MarioSchraepen . Referendum 493 proposed to create a service remittance called Litesend
https://litesend.com/
in addition to a marketing campaign with 55k USD (28% of the proposal cost) as well as the acquisition of new partners and new jurisdictions to operate in 88k USD (45% of proposal cost). Reporting these items should be encouraged before creating a new referendum. The status of these two integrations which combined are 73% of the previously approved referendum should be reported to OpenGov (referendum 493 on OGTracker doesn’t include the new jurisdictions and new partners integration https://app.ogtracker.io/mediumSpender/493?tab=progress OGTracker).
These Items that seem missing and the lack of a Polkadot or Litesend appearance on the previously announced conference or Electrocoin panelists on “Money Motion 2024”
https://2024.money-motion.eu/speakers-2024/
or in the startup stage
https://2024.money-motion.eu/startups/
is something that should be properly explained.

Our emphasis for now is on reports about the new jurisdiction and partner acquisition which seems completely missing from referendum 493 and detailed reports of these marketing efforts which have not been produced or reported to the extent expected. There are other items that caught our attention like the lack of integration of USDC/T on Assethub on the Electrocoin site as well
https://electrocoin.eu/en
something that the treasure didn't pay for but also something that doesn't show much interest in the ecosystem as a whole from our perspective.

For those reasons we will vote and remain NAY.

Reply
Up 1

Dear @Electrocoin,

Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Medium Spender track requires a 50% quorum and simple majority according to our voting policy. This proposal has received zero aye and nine nay votes from ten members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The referendum faced unanimous opposition, with members firmly rejecting the proposal due to the proposer’s failure to deliver on a previous funded proposal (#493) from 10 months ago. Critics emphasised that additional funding should only be considered after the completion of past deliverables. Concerns were also raised about the ecosystem already allocating significant funds to wallets. The lack of updates or accountability for prior commitments led to a clear consensus against the proposal.

The full discussion, along with individual members' votes and comments, can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

Reply
Up