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
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).