Threshold
Hi Wario,
With the ongoing discussion around the real-world legal viability on https://forum.polkadot.network/t/community-oversight-of-pcf-subsidiaries/13962. We’ve taken the time to give this proposal a second, more careful read. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Polkadot would benefit from research and legal frameworks of this nature, especially as institutional and regulatory interactions become more relevant.
That said, we’re currently trying to conduct a basic background check on the proposed researchers. Unfortunately, we've been unable to find any verifiable information online about Gabriel A. Velázquez or Antonio O. Could you kindly point us in the right direction or share any links, credentials, or academic affiliations that would help us cross-reference their expertise?
Our communication tool currently is under rework. You may reach out to us via X - REEEEEEEEEE DAO
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum (at least 5 aye votes) and simple majority of non-abstain votes 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 five aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The referendum proposal for legal research and a public portal to enhance the DAO’s legitimacy stirred mixed responses. Some voters expressed doubts about its overall necessity and questioned whether similar initiatives were already in progress, suggesting that legal work should be tailored more narrowly to specific US-related operations. Others acknowledged the value of dedicated research and the relatively low financial ask, supporting a trial period during which results could be rigorously evaluated. A few members remained cautious or abstained pending clearer outcomes and broader ecosystem coordination. Ultimately, despite these reservations, the overall decision reflected support for advancing legal clarity through academic inquiry.
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
TruthDAO votes AYE
With the growing trend of RWA (Real-World Assets) moving on-chain, strengthening Polkadot’s compliance position in the U.S. to attract institutional investors and partnerships with traditional enterprises is a worthwhile investment.
The ask is reasonable, and the work will help the ecosystem gain a deeper understanding of compliance, while also supporting more projects within the ecosystem.
It complements the legal efforts of PCF/Parity, and the open-source outcomes will benefit the entire ecosystem. Considering the spillover effects of U.S. regulatory trends, this research is essential.
See more feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭 Contact: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
Initiatives like this are important to provide legal clarity for DAOs. Without this research, there isn't the necessary tools for legislators to understand the proposed associative model. And this lack of understanding can lead to many decisions in which DAO participants can be held liable without limit.
Although there is a wealth of material on this topic, it is now necessary to organize and create a foundation of best practices and procedures for these organizational structures. This can only be achieved by gathering data about them and identifying patterns of success and failure in their operations.
In my view, this research will not only provide data for legislators and external stakeholders, but also serve as an assessment of OpenGov Polkadot at this time and its impact on the ecosystem's development.
US legislation itself is an excellent reference point. Each state has sovereignty over its legislative decisions. This provides us with a broad base of potential applications for this DAO model.
Some of these jurisdictions already have a better understanding of DAOs and are even legally prepared to address the problem. Others simply ignore the phenomenon, providing us with a basis for a broad dialogue that will only be possible with high-level data, the identification of best practices, and a clear vision of objectives.
Focusing on the US is undoubtedly an important strategic decision in this research, and the costs of its implementation seem extremely modest compared to the potential impact. This not only provides legal clarity on DAOs to US lawmakers but also serves as a model for their implementation in different countries at a later stage.
PolkaWorld votes NAY
Two-thirds of our members voted against, while one-third abstained.
Polkadot has long lacked a strong presence in the U.S., and this research could help define what kind of DAO structures are most suitable for Polkadot. It could also provide legal positioning and contract-based analysis for treasury proposals.
However, our members believe that legal frameworks for DAOs are generally chain-agnostic—many principles and regulatory standards remain consistent regardless of the underlying blockchain. While providing more legal clarity for Polkadot is a meaningful direction, we don’t believe it is urgent enough at this stage to justify a $50,000 spend. We think the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) should first assess whether this research is needed. Since we are not deeply involved in legal compliance ourselves, it’s difficult to determine its necessity.
Additionally, we believe there needs to be clarity on whether this kind of work already falls within the responsibilities of PCF or could be conducted by Parity’s legal team. There’s a risk of overlap or unclear division of duties that should be addressed.
See full feedback here.