NOTE — Due 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
Threshold
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
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:
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:
An additional questions to Polkassembly:
Thank you.