Threshold
Its because the trading platform for Coretime resellers was not provided.
No competition, market and free trading - be prepared for the problems
Edited
Strongly opposed. Isn’t Coretime worth 150,000? It is. So why are people unwilling to pay? The rules were set from the beginning, and now someone has followed those rules to purchase Coretime—yet you’re trying to change them. That doesn’t reflect the spirit of blockchain; it just looks like you can’t accept the outcome. It’s basically the same underlying logic as a hard fork. This is actually a great opportunity to promote Coretime—to show everyone that it is worth 150,000.
Rules are rules: Mythical and Xcavate failed to renew their Coretime on time. That is their own responsibility. As adults, we must be accountable for our actions rather than bending established rules to fix individual mistakes.
This is a valuable market signal: The fact that someone bought out the Coretime shows that it has real value. This is a powerful marketing opportunity to highlight the importance of Coretime and encourage open competition. Who knows — the next big winner could be anyone.
Investments deserve returns: When nobody else was buying Coretime, this buyer took the risk and bought it all. If we now punish them simply for asking a high price, we undermine the basic principles of a fair market.
Supporting "buy later with votes" sets a dangerous precedent: If this kind of proposal passes, what incentive will anyone have to buy Coretime in advance? Everyone will simply rely on community votes to bail them out. This approach harms all DOT holders who play by the rules.
Back when it was 0.9 each, no one wanted to buy. Now it’s 9.8 each and someone’s buying in bulk. If there really was no demand for parachains, shouldn’t we actually be praising the fact that Coretime sold out? Now just because some parachains didn’t do their job properly, people are calling it a malicious buy-up? That’s double standards, and it’s not okay.
imo, it is incorrect to use such a negative tone towards the buyer, as what they did is fair, but it is correct to use federal power to protect underlying organizations when need be, as this is why groups organize under a federation in the first place.
More likely once the seller sees they won't get 150k, they'll drop to something reasonable but still beneficial for them and we can all be happy.
Nay to 150k, but we should definitely tip them reasonably after this goes through. It's essentially a bug they found.
Hi @bkchr ,
First of all, I want to acknowledge your continued contributions to Polkadot - your work is immensely valuable, and I appreciate the leadership and energy you bring to the ecosystem. I can see that this proposal is well-intentioned and aims to protect strategic projects. That said, I must respectfully disagree with the approach being proposed here.
Let’s establish a key point: Mythical and Xcavate missed their renewal windows. This wasn't an unpredictable event or a failure of the Coretime mechanism per se - it was a lapse in operational execution. As unfortunate as the outcome is, granting them two months of free Coretime not only sidesteps responsibility, it risks setting a precedent where operational lapses are rewarded, not penalized.
I’m not against helping these parachains out of their current bind. A whitelist call to allocate them cores? Sure. But let’s be principled about it:
My suggestion: require each project to contribute 75K USDT to the Treasury. That’s half the price the "Coretime speculator" is asking, which still provides a substantial discount - but ensures that someone pays the cost, and the treasury benefits as a result.
Whether or not the external party is a "scammer" doesn’t change the underlying economics - if buying from them is out of the question, there should still be some cost associated.
Letting this proposal pass as-is sends a message: if you miss your renewal, someone might bail you out for free. That’s not a message we want to reinforce - especially when we’re trying to build a robust, decentralized, and economically sound ecosystem.
It’s like awarding a perfect exam score to a student who simply forgot to show up. We can sympathize - but we shouldn’t compromise principles in the process.
We all want to see strategic projects thrive. But they, like every other parachain, must take responsibility for managing their resources.
NAY. The entire coretime sales mechanism needs to be fixed or completely redesigned ASAP.
Also, the buyer is asking for 3,500 DOT — not $150k.
This whole situation is honestly pretty embarrassing
This proposal deserves support as the context surrounding it is critical. Failing to acknowledge that underlines a certain lack of practical and pragmatic maturity. It isn't solely a simple case of missed renewals. Instead, it is responding to a situation deliberately engineered by an entity that acquired a significant number of cores and is now leveraging that control to intentionally obstruct established parachains.
This entity's tactic, allocating cores to newly registered, likely non-operational chains while explicitly conditioning continued operation for established chains on direct contact (under threat of shutdown), moves far beyond legitimate market negotiation or price discovery. Framing this as a mechanism to achieve said price discovery, while actively crippling operational projects is a morally and intellectually bankrupt justification for what clearly constitutes intentional interference designed to cause direct harm and extract disproportionate value under duress.
It's important for the community and governance bodies to recognize that the behavior, communications, and demands of the entity orchestrating this are now substantially documented. This pattern of behavior provides clear evidence of the intent behind these actions. The consequences are not abstract: other established teams face imminent operational disruption, directly impacting their projects, services, and potentially their users who suffer from these calculated actions. These affected teams, witnessing the deliberate nature of this interference, will certainly have avenues for recourse based on the tangible damages incurred. Notably, every public statement made by this entity attempting to justify their actions or engage in pseudo-negotiation simply adds to the body of evidence potentially supporting legal recourse by those harmed.
The use of services like ProtonMail does not necessarily shield activities that could be deemed illegal. If these actions constitute unlawful economic coercion or interference under applicable Swiss regulations, there may indeed be recourse through relevant legal channels. This entity knows this, and has a lot at stake given the protective apparatus in place. It isn't completely out of the question though that they might just be a chicken, additionally to being a digital leech.
Crucially, this proposal isn't simply about providing coretime, it's a cornerstone governance intervention to counteract malicious behavior that weaponizes system mechanics against active ecosystem participants. Passing this proposal sends a clear message that such predatory tactics will be addressed to protect the network's stability and the projects building on it. Code isn't law, and owning cores doesn't make you a law maker, vote is law and is the only thing that matters. We must and should act to ensure essential infrastructure remains operational despite these deliberate attempts at disruption.
This proposal gives me commensurate hope not only in Polkadot as a protocol but also as a community.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our second vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Whitelisted Caller track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received six aye and one nay votes from nine available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Voters expressed mixed opinions regarding intervention in Coretime auctions. Some supported immediate action to address perceived issues, emphasizing the need for improved user experience and the implementation of auto-renewal options. Others opposed intervention, arguing it could undermine the economic model and create long-term devaluation concerns. A few voters abstained, highlighting fairness for coretime buyers and the complexity of the situation. Overall, there was a consensus on the importance of resolving the issue while avoiding setting a problematic precedent.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Edited
I agree with the majority sentiments that NAYing this proposal. We should provide a solution to help parachains continue running because the coretime market isn't perfect yet, but they pay for that solution because it is a market.
OMG...
Yep, Coretime discovery price definitely needs to be fixed.
OR
There should be a priority lane for projects having a live Core and running a live chain on it, they should always have top priorities and be protected from the Joe guy coming to buy all Cores trying to get some money of it (or just by malicious behavior).