Curator Reinstatements & Bounty Housekeeping

What is going on with the Pioneers Prize bounty? This bounty has ~750k DOT in it but is rarely used. Maybe it's better to let these funds be reallocated? It would be great to get an update on that bounty, how it works, it's current purpose and goals.
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/child-bounties?parentBountyId=10

I'll post here the same thing I commented on KusDAO:

I don’t want to sound too harsh, but when curators forget to renew the expiration of a bounty, it naturally raises questions about how they’re managing the proposals and the overall initiatives linked to that bounty. To me, it’s a troubling sign and a clear nay.

There are highly active contributors engaging with the ecosystem on a daily basis, eager to help it grow, while others seem to be sitting in their curator roles without a clear purpose or visible contribution. Apologies for the bluntness, but I felt it needed to be said.

This wasn't an act of bad faith. This was to Ignite transformative conversations to advance the Polkadot relay through boldly unconventional channels.

Hey there, just want to add that if it wasn't for @OTAR who warned us two times about expiry, we would have been out of the UX Bounty too.

This is something easily forgettable, let alone if you didn't even know its existence in the first place.

--

Since this morning though, I just used PAPI's UI for creating batch payouts and they have a toggle to extend the bounty so you keep this always on.

I recommend every curators to use that tool. Great UX and easy to use.
https://bounties.usepapi.app/

PolkaWorld votes AYE.

The entire team is in favor, considering this proposal a necessary and reasonable “technical fix” to prevent potential expansion of “bounty manipulation.” However, we recommend adding a reminder mechanism on the bounty governance page to increase awareness.

You can view the full feedback here.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Treasurer 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 seven aye and zero nay votes from ten available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters overwhelmingly supported the referendum, emphasizing the need for scrutiny of inactive bounties and improvements to the renewal system. Many suggested that technology could enhance the process, such as implementing a notification system or an opt-in/opt-out auto-renewal feature. Concerns were raised about curators needing to be more diligent, as the proposed changes were expected to resolve user experience issues and prevent future complications. Overall, there was a consensus that addressing these issues was essential for the community.

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

JAM Implementers DAO votes AYE on this proposal.

This proposal fixes an urgent governance gap. Several curators were unassigned from active bounties not due to performance, but because of expired assignments — a known issue that will soon be resolved with runtime changes. Reinstituting the original curators for Bounties #10, #38, and #59 is the pragmatic move to restore continuity and avoid delays in grant disbursement.

✅ All three teams have been contacted and aligned on reinstatement.
✅ These bounties are essential programs (developer grants, games, and innovation prizes) that should not be stalled due to a technicality.
✅ The alternative — leaving these roles vacant or exposed to bad-faith actors — risks real damage.

The proposal also cleans up stale bounties (#42, #60, #61, #65, #66, #68) with prolonged inactivity or lack of transparency. While it would’ve been helpful to see a more detailed breakdown per bounty, we believe the proposer’s due diligence and the benefits of decluttering outweigh the marginal risk.

Some of our DAO members rightly call for more separation of concerns. That’s fair. But given the timing, operational urgency, and the reputational risk of letting active bounties drift, we believe a bundled approach is warranted in this case.