Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship: The Ascent Cycle (July 2025 - March 2026)

7hrs 57mins ago
11
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
220KUSDC
220KUSDC
220KUSDC
220KUSDC
220KUSDC
Show More
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
7d
Attempts
0
Tally
9.4%Aye
90.6%Nay
Aye
10,519DOT
Nay
101.35KDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
3,524.5DOT
Issuance
1.57BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

Let’s take a look at the truth behind Polkadot governance. This Fellowship keeps hyping up Polkadot every single day, but in reality, they don’t even hold much $DOT.
They pushed for the Treasury to sell 5 million DOT for USDC — and it’s already been executed — just to ensure they can keep applying for funds and getting paid.
Now, they’re asking for another 2.2 million USDC.
But honestly, they haven’t contributed much to Polkadot. At most, they host online meetings, make some charts, and post on X — basically the work of an entry-level office employee.

Reply
Up 1

What successes does the ambassador program have to show for, and how much did it cost to get there?

  1. Has the program improved DOT’s reputation? A quick glance at https://www.reddit.com/r/polkadot_market/ or twitter (minus the paid yappers posts) suggests otherwise.

  2. Has the program brought in more users? DOT still feels like a ghost town.

  3. Has the program brought in paying customers? You know, the kind who don’t ask for funding from treasury or web3 foundation before contributing a few cents for core time?

Reply
Up

Right, so you expect us to believe that not a single one of the 25 names slapped on this bloated travesty clocked the grift? Pull the other one, mate — it’s got bells on. This is the same rinse-and-repeat formula: flood governance with spammy proposals, and when one finally limps over the line, everyone suddenly develops amnesia. “Oh! Wasn’t me guv, didn’t know a thing!” Absolute bollocks.

Let’s stop pretending this is anything but coordinated looting. Every name on this ref? Cut ‘em. Permanently. They’ve declared loud and clear: they’re here to leech, not lead. It’s not decentralisation — it’s just a glorified gravy train.

Ingo? Already pocketing cash from PoKe. But of course that’s not enough — gotta wring out another $15k because why not, eh? When there’s a treasury to milk, everyone suddenly turns into Oliver Twist — "please sir, may I have some more?”

And Lucy — always performing the “I don’t really want to do this, but someone has to” routine like it’s amateur night at a West End tragedy. Spare us the martyr act, love — no one forced you into the limelight. Funny how the burden always comes with a paycheck.

Also — let’s not tiptoe round the husband bit. That’s not community service, it’s a family-run enterprise at this point. The nepotism is thicker than cold treacle.

And where the bloody hell are Web3 Foundation and Parity in all this? Do they even look at what their name is attached to anymore? Or are they just happy letting the same gang of insiders slap logos on every Ponzi-in-a-powerpoint that rolls through Polkassembly?

This isn’t leadership. It’s a heist — one with a fancy deck and a video pitch. And if you’re clapping for it, you’re either in on it, or asleep at the wheel.

No more faffing about. Cut the crap, cut the budget, and cut these names out of funding circles before the Treasury ends up emptier than a London pub on a Monday morning.

Reply
Up