Please vote Nay

Big Spender
8d ago
18 Comments
Deciding

NOTEDue to some calculation errors and community feedback on the proposal, we have decided to withdraw the proposal in its current state and we plan to create a followup proposal incorporating the feedback and limited scope of development. 

We thank everyone who supported this proposal and look forward to everyone's support on the updated proposal. 

Regards,

Polkassembly Team

Reply
Up
Share
Request
968.49KUSDT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation7d
Attempts
0
Tally
10.1%Aye
89.9%Nay
Aye
2.71MDOT
Nay
24.02MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support0.05%
807.67KDOT
Issuance
1.53BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

Hi there.
Polkassembly with the Subsquare are 2 major products of governance tool on Polkadot. Which is great.
However, I voted NAY on this proposal because:

  1. The requested amount is unbelievably big.
  2. The request for $1,000,000 for a product that is hardly working after 2 years of development. It has constant annoying bugs, such as content not loading, loss of RPC, loss of connection with wallet, content shifting, and slow loading.

I should admit that in the last year, I personally submitted more than +25 bugs to the Polkassembly team (which is not great). However, some of the bugs were fixed very quickly.

I would suggest Polkassembly to:

  1. Fix already knows bugs
  2. Improve user workability
  3. Lower the amount.

An additional questions to Polkassembly:

    1. If the infrastructure cost req 92K\months, which means 92K*12=1,104,000$ only Infra cost, how can you request a lower amount?
  • 2, Can you please share: statistical data of polkassembly: daily, weekly, monthly visitors, average session in min?

Thank you.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

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

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received one aye and five nay votes from ten members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

In the recent referendum, voters expressed concerns about the quality and functionality of Polkassembly, advocating for smaller, more focused proposals for improvement rather than a large upfront payment. Many highlighted the importance of the platform within the ecosystem, suggesting that its price tag should align more closely with similar products like Subsquare, which they viewed as superior. Overall, there was a strong desire for enhanced usability and performance from Polkassembly, reflecting a consensus for caution and incremental upgrades rather than substantial financial commitments.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

Reply
Up