Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) - Proposal for Renewed Funding for One Year

23hrs 54mins ago
9
Confirming
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
632KUSDC
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
7d
Attempts
1
Tally
63%Aye
37%Nay
Aye
45.35MDOT
Nay
26.63MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.89%
14.12MDOT
Issuance
1.58BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 GRIFT 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

632 K USDC for this? While you still have another ref running ... we'd really be much better off closing this supermarket.

In fact, bruh, we’d get a better yield sending DOT to the Nigerian-prince-spam folder at least that scam only needs one guy, not 5 admins, 3 “operators,” and D&O insurance to tweet about a Ledger giveaway.

If Year 1’s highlight was mailing 50 USB sticks, maybe the Treasury should unsubscribe before the legal-fee auto-renew hits. Keep on-chain, kill the condo budget.

Reply
Up 1

I might be tempted to fill the role of one of the two DOT Directors for PCF Operations

Edited

Reply
Up 1

Unfortunately we are forced to intervene with out direct experience about the "Managing the Centrifuge Proposal" results hereby presented.

Anonymous Projects argues that: Ecosystem Concerns: Centrifuge’s proposal to migrate chains raised concerns about investing Polkadot funds into another ecosystem was what caused the delay but the the reality is that Anemoy deployment was delayed due to the PCF lack of basic expertise in multisigs and awareness of the web3 ecosystem in general in addition to slow response time. That is what caused the initial delays. If that's the case, it's not worth the premium.

The referendum 1441 came later https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1441

Arguing concerns about ecosystem changes or similar should have not been used as an excuse for the delays at this price tag.

At this point the PCF is acting more as a meatspace representative more than THE representation of the Polkadot DAO so current activities (PAPI funding, MB contract-making, etc.) can be taken over by other structures or simply by other providers. We wound't want to disrupt the current activities but serious reconsideration of providers should be taken for the next round.

We also need to bear in mind that when we inquired about the possibility of winding down operations these extra fees hereby proposed were never mentioned.

Reply
Up 1

PolkaWorld votes NAY.

Two-thirds opposed, one-third in support.

Opposing views:

  1. Administrative, board, and legal/compliance costs exceed 80% of the total budget, with relatively little allocated directly to content delivery or developer incentives. The proposal feels more like funding a service provider than an ecosystem enabler.

  2. While the entity claims to represent the Polkadot DAO community, DOT holders still don’t know who is actually behind this “company.” There is a serious lack of transparency. DOT holders should be voting on who fills these roles, as well as on key matters like budget allocation and vendor selection.

Overall, the budget is heavily weighted toward operational overhead and legal structure, with no clear roadmap for transferring governance power to the community or evolving into a true DAO. The proposal would be more compelling if it:

•	Reduced administrative overhead
•	Introduced DOT holder election mechanisms
•	Clarified exit strategies
•	Incorporated more ecosystem feedback metrics for impact evaluation

Supporting views:

As a novel DAO mechanism, PCF plays an important role in pushing for Polkadot compliance and bridging relationships with Web2. This is a critical function that the ecosystem needs.

You can read the full feedback here.

Reply
Up

..

Edited

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

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

The Big Spender 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 one aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Some members acknowledged the potential long-term benefits of a legal framework for the DAO, many were dissatisfied with the execution and effectiveness of the current offerings. Concerns about underwhelming past performance and high costs were prevalent, leading several voters to suggest a reevaluation of leadership and service providers. A few opted to abstain, indicating uncertainty about the proposal's impact, while others voiced hope for improvements in the future.

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

Reply
Up

As a legally registered entity, the PCF plays a crucial role in carrying out off-chain operations that are difficult to accomplish solely through on-chain governance. These include contract execution, regulatory compliance, financial responsibility, and more. Rather than being redundant costs, these functions form a key execution layer that ensures Treasury funds can be effectively deployed in the real world. We recognize the value and necessity of its existence.

Suggestions:

• If approved, the Information Hub should be made publicly accessible, and a cap should be placed on legal expenses.
• Regular third-party audits should be conducted to ensure that fund usage aligns with stated commitments.

You can view the full feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Contact: Email, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up

JAM Implementers DAO votes NAY on this proposal.

While we recognize the value the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) provided in its first year — laying legal and operational groundwork for off-chain execution — this renewal proposal falls short in a few key areas:

🔸 Lack of Clarity on Year 2 Deliverables
The proposal fails to clearly define the concrete benefits or outcomes expected in this next year. What is the PCF doing beyond maintaining operations?

🔸 Scope Creep without Governance Clarity
The addition of two new directors “for governance leadership” lacks justification. It’s unclear how this governance expansion translates to measurable ecosystem impact or why the current structure is insufficient.

This proposal appears to be more about sustaining an institution than delivering new, community-visible outcomes. Treasury resources should be allocated with a clear, justified impact.

Reply
Up