Polkadot Community Foundation: Conditions on transferring funds to Centrifuge-related instruments

Hi Leemo
Just some details:

1. In accordance with Ref# 1122 the Polkadot Community Foundation shouldn't transfer to Centrifuge but instead to Anemoy LTF (issuer).

   It’s also important to note that the beneficiary wallet listed is the Polkadot Community Foundation multi-sig wallet - in no way is Centrifuge involved as an added layer of risk in being responsible for sending back the 1.5M.

2. Polkadot Community Foundation received the requested amount on 28th September 2024; since that day, the funds have never been invested until today ( 140 days from the receiving date).

what's the initial reason for these assets to be idling at asset hub for this long?

seems to me that the clear reason here for abandoning their own parachain is to cut down maintenance costs of the protocol that does not require the scalability of running its own parachain. i feel that a much more productive bargaining approach would be raising a governance vote on centrifuge about deploying contracts on polkadot q3 rather than having a bunch of fiat assets idling around in a lose-lose situation.

Just a quick summary:

• Ref #1122 - https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1122
  The requested initial amount of 3.0M $ was changed to 1.5M$ following the Polkadot Community decision.
• The funds were allocated to Polkadot Community Foundation Wallet ( 5HmLLCGUt1uvkHct3Rw7hbCxBEwibT5GDepV2cQDydY6fRFV in date of 28th of September
• Since that date, the funds ALWAYS remained in FULL Control of POLKADOT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
• Wallet address on Asset Hub: https://portfolio.subscan.io/account/5HmLLCGUt1uvkHct3Rw7hbCxBEwibT5GDepV2cQDydY6fRFV
  

It’s also important to note that the beneficiary wallet listed is the Polkadot Community Foundation multi-sig wallet - in no way is Centrifuge involved there.

As mentioned to the proposer on X, our enhanced rationale will be posted here. We don’t think it’s wise to start policing alignment with the products hereby mentioned or any other product, it didn’t work for Ethereum with their large TVL it definitely won’t work for Polkadot.
If there is more information the proposer or other parties want to add as to why working with Centrifuge is not a good idea anymore, please present it publicly.
Reducing our treasury yield and future prospects of it in order for Centrifuge to deploy on AssetHub as soon as possible is simply not our PREFERENCE (this is presented as the main reason, all speculation about other points should be made clear at this point. A valid reason should be if Centrifuge is not going to accept and provide the yield so if there are more unknown reasons feel free to explain them).
Projects will come and go and our only job is to create an attractive environment for projects to deploy at. A Laissez-faire approach to treasury yield should be preferred in our view. Surely, if stable yield can be obtained from lending within the ecosystem then so be it with enough guarantees and security (but many will still find issues if we loan treasury to Moonwell for instance as they won’t be “aligned enough” according to many).

From the comment: “Why would the network invest in a project that is migrating to another chain?”
https://x.com/xcjeeper/status/1891486694785871878

Simply put, it seems easier to do business with Centrifuge than to make demands without much leverage or to create tokenized T-Bill alternatives from scratch.

About the comment “Businesses would have already been put on hold”
https://x.com/0xTaylor_/status/1891589808943685739

We think that it’s ONE way to do business for sure, put money on hold make demands if there is leverage and ask for alignment a-la-Ethereum if it's on chain. This is simply not our PREFERENCE. Polkadot is still a growing project in a growing technology field.

About the comments pointing out that it’s only “small yield”
https://x.com/LeemoXD/status/1891482705776234839
We hold the view that treasury income something that should be diversified away from DOT issuance because this issued DOT directed towards the treasury heavily depends on the market forces of the token, i.e. buyers. T-bill treasury yield is uncorrelated to that. We should really start building yield rails for our treasury.

About the comment that we are funding other ecosystems.
https://x.com/19283746zq/status/1891628344833343667
It tangentially relates to the previous comments but directly we can say that this is a product/application that brings yield to the treasury and it is not the direct funding for the development of an external product within Near, Solana, what-have-you.

As for all the pressuring / smearing type of comments,
https://x.com/0xBemtikru/status/1891488073503961489
feel free to discuss whatever you want about governance, we don’t shy about anything, though be ready to explain whatever “if-you-know-you-know” facts you think are relevant. But if people are going to start doing this dirty campaign against us again please realize that you will be reported according to DV rules as it directly affects our media people. We will investigate it and present results publicly about all concerted pressure efforts against us. We already have a good knowledge of the responsible parties in these pressuring, smearing, ridicule and dirty tactics and it is something and we will start reporting publicly, seriously and with proof so be warned.

ADDENDUM Feb 19th 2025:
https://x.com/TheKusamarian/status/1892288039935688867
If really the "know-how" and reasons for the lack of execution of the foundation is the source of concern, it seems like this concern should be better coordinated with the Centrifuge team and with the directors of the PCF directly as simply putting funds on hold is not enough to achieve this objective.