RegionX - Coretime Marketplace Production Deployment Phase 1

Medium Spender
17d ago
14 Comments
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
90,070USDT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation4d
Attempts
0
Tally
60.6%Aye
39.4%Nay
Aye
19.03MDOT
Nay
12.37MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support0.39%
6.04MDOT
Issuance
1.53BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

If the rationale behind proposing a Parachain is to enable more flexible programmability, I have a number of proposed solutions that we can pursue via RFCs and would be more sustainable long term:

  1. Coretime NFTs should be transferrable to AH, where contracts can manipulate them, send them back to Coretime-chain, and then used.
  2. Eventually, AH itself can become a trusted source for Coretime information, not needing the results to be sent back.
  3. This leads the way to potentially merging Coretime-chain and AH, making Coretime NFTs fully programmable in the same environment where staking, DOT and governance is.

While step 3 is more controversial, step 1 and 2 are not, and I believe they can fulfill most of your requirements, avoiding the need for another parachain.

Reply
Up 1

Thanks for your work on this proposal. I read through it, including why you’re asking for funds directly from the Polkadot Treasury.

I’ll have to vote NAY here, because I think it’d be better to request Phase 1 funding from the Kusama Treasury first. Once Phase 1 is done, you could then ask Polkadot for Phase 2 funds. This way, it fits better with how Kusama (for early-stage projects) and Polkadot (for more mature ones) usually work.

Hope you’ll consider this option! I’m happy to discuss it further if needed.

Reply
Up

Aye for sure!
RegionX has done a great job maintaining a user-friendly Coretime page, which is crucial for the ecosystem.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

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

The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum and simple majority of all voters according to our voting policy. This proposal has received one aye and four nay votes from ten members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

In the referendum, voters expressed varied opinions regarding the proposal. Some supported the idea but suggested funding through a different treasury, while others abstained, citing a need for more context or uncertainty about the project's phased approach between two platforms. Dissenting voices raised concerns about the necessity of a dedicated parachain for the initiative, emphasizing that existing solutions could suffice. Overall, the responses highlighted a mixture of support, skepticism, and caution regarding the project's execution and funding mechanisms.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

Reply
Up

Disregarding the technicalities, I think it is becoming more important to actually drive demand. Building tech itself is not enough anymore to get more adoption.
When do you see this as a success? How many cores do you want to sell per month?

Reply
Up