Polkadot Community Foundation - Repatriate Centrifuge-Deployed Treasury Assets to the Polkadot Treasury in Stablecoins

Although Proposal 1122 states this:

** "Returning Funds - Liquidity

There is no lock-up period for the investment - a redemption/return of funds simply requires a proposal outlining such actions. These actions are for the Polkadot community to decide.

Once a sell order has been passed by the DAO, funds can be returned on the same day."**

I would like to know the specific reasons why the return is being requested at this time?

PolkaWorld votes NAY

This funding was just deployed in April of this year. If it’s being requested for withdrawal now, there needs to be a clear and specific reason.
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1122#7

Additionally, the proposer is using an anonymous account — but regardless, a proper justification for the rollback is essential.

We’ll continue to follow this and look forward to seeing the proposer provide more reasoning and evidence for the withdrawal request!

Read all feedback here.

Note - I am speaking personally, not as a representative of Web3 Foundation.

We have a finite amount of DOT and other assets in the Treasury. I would much rather see these assets being used and deployed on Polkadot-focused projects. With Centrifuge deprecating their parachain (see here and the clarifying comment here), I am in favor of this Referendum.

The proposal is not followed through, so the funds should be crawled back. AYE

Dear Proposer,

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

The Wish For Change 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 motion to return funds to the ecosystem, expressing disappointment over Centrifuge's departure and emphasizing the need for better utilization of resources. Many believed that reallocating the funds to the Polkadot treasury was the most appropriate course of action in light of recent events. Overall, the sentiment reflected a desire to learn from the situation and ensure that the community could benefit from the resources in a more effective manner.

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 NAY on this proposal

In 2024, the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) deployed $1.5M USDC into Centrifuge’s Anemoy Liquid Treasury Fund (LTF). The current proposal seeks to withdraw 100% of the principal and all accrued yield back to the Treasury — without offering any substantial explanation for the urgency.

The proposal is notably light on context.

There’s no disclosure of:
Why the full amount must be withdrawn now.
What systemic risks or strategic shifts prompted this.
The current yield performance.
The size and structure of withdrawal fees.
Whether the deprecation of Centrifuge's parachain or CFG's migration to Ethereum is the real driver.

Instead, the proposal vaguely states “the Polkadot community now requests...” with no links, proof of consultation, or formal governance discussion.

The lack of transparency is glaring — especially when $1.5M in public funds is involved.

Many of JAM DAO members raised critical questions:
Has the investment been evaluated long enough to judge its performance?
Why not let the yield compound or partially withdraw?
Is the withdrawal being driven by undisclosed regulatory risks or counterparty concerns?

Worse still, this repatriation comes just as PCF is seeking $632K in renewed funding — citing this very investment as a success in its pitch. The timing feels contradictory.

A deprecated parachain is not, in itself, justification to withdraw prematurely — especially without hard numbers or a clear financial rationale.

Until we have more data — yield breakdowns, fee structures, rationale, and risk disclosures — JAM DAO votes NAY. Accountability demands clarity. And this proposal fails to meet that bar.

@Trustless Core
There is no counterparty risk because JH Anemoy provides direct ownership of the T-Bill coupons to PCF.
That was the whole point of tokenising T-Bills with JH Anemoy. There isn`t any intermediate layer. At all.

https://app.centrifuge.io/#/pools/4139607887

That is literally written in the whitepaper and the agreement. You can double-check this even with PCF =)
The T-Bills could be redeemed directly by PCF in case of JH Anemoy's default.

P.S. Just for your information, 7 days ago, Sky (Ex Maker DAO) invested the biggest onchain investment in a single product into JH Anemoy -> 1,000,000,000$
Source: https://www.theblock.co/post/359687/sky-approves-1-billion-allocation-for-janus-hendersons-onchain-fund-using-fresh-out-of-stealth-grove-infrastructure

Perhaps they have more information about the Finances and risks... =)

AYE
The Centrifuge fund is very good and interesting; however, since Centrifuge is currently focusing most of its efforts on external protocols, for me this is an AYE. I believe those funds, plus the yield, can be put to better use within the Polkadot ecosystem.