Threshold
PolkaWorld votes NAY on this proposal.
From Polkadot’s perspective, this is not an urgent or high-priority need. Additionally, PolkaWorld would like to strongly recommend that all proposers publish the full content of their proposals on-chain in the future. We also suggest that Polkassembly and Opensquare develop a tagging feature to categorize proposals. This would greatly support treasury fund classification and help establish a clearer prioritization framework.
The Budgets section of this proposal is overly simplistic and lacks necessary detail. A proper and transparent budget should include: milestones, development functions and descriptions, involved personnel (by role), estimated time per role, and respective hourly rates.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain voters 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 zero aye and five nay votes from ten available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Several voters expressed their skepticism and concerns about the proposed solution, primarily focusing on its necessity and effectiveness. Many believed that the functionalities outlined were already available but underutilized by proposers, suggesting that a more efficient approach could be achieved without the new proposal. Others raised questions about the operational aspects, such as costs and hosting, while some remained neutral, feeling uncertain but leaning towards opposition. Overall, the feedback highlighted a significant level of doubt regarding the proposal's value and execution.
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
Hi @Open 4 Blockchain,
I agree that it's necessary that the proposers include the PDF files and their hashes in the proposal, but it is basically free to do it on IPFS, and both myself and some others have already been applying this practice in our proposals. You are proposing to charge the treasury for interfacing with free services, and on top of that you're planning to charge the community further for the use of the services:
Totally unnecessary. Any proposer can already do it for free. It's just a matter of enforcement by the community. If we want to include it in the workflows of Subsquare or Polkassembly, then those teams should be funded to implement this feature.
Nay.
Best,
kukabi | Helikon
Edited