Threshold
I'm a strong supporter of educational initiatives, but I’m wondering why fund something that has already been done, when what we really need are materials covering other aspects of Polkadot technology?
Saxemberg has voted NAY on the Polkadot referendum 1712 4-Month DotCodeSchool Stewardship & Improvements. Observations: DotCodeSchool previous funding attempt showed that current demand doesn't guarantee such financial support.
This referendum is eligible for vote overrule:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmeVKngeecXywAcL2d1K9STyqctBWYsb3qv3uweKrcmXBj
Edited
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Small Spender track requires 50% participation 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 four aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Voters expressed cautious optimism about the proposal to steward and improve the educational platform after its original maintainer stepped back. Some participants supported educational initiatives within the ecosystem and underscored the long-term benefits of having an active steward, while others questioned details such as the completion status of previous proposals and explored alternative funding avenues for the tool. There was appreciation for the efforts to bolster developer education and interactive online learning, with suggestions to evaluate the results after the four-month period. Overall, the community acknowledged the value of maintaining the platform and its potential to enhance accessibility and contribution opportunities.
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 voted AYE!
While our overall vote is AYE, we believe the concerns raised by opponents are worth surfacing:
1.The proposal mentions publishing monthly reports, but the content (“tasks, duration, time, date”) is more about process. The community is likely more interested in results, such as:
These quantitative impact metrics are not clearly defined.
2.The proposer states the goal is not to hold on to DotCodeSchool long-term, but to eventually hand it over. However, questions remain:
3.The proposal acknowledges that “too few people know about DotCodeSchool,” but the solution given is only “maybe collaborate with someone experienced in marketing in the future.” Without a concrete plan, timeline, or partner commitment, this may leave doubts about solving the visibility issue.
See more feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 2 AYE, 1 NAY, and 0 ABSTAIN.
Supporting the DotCodeSchool proposal aligns with the strategic goal of strengthening Polkadot's developer ecosystem, which is a key component of its competitive advantage. By ensuring the platform remains up-to-date and accessible, the proposal helps create a sustainable ecosystem moat that can attract and retain developers. The detailed plan and accountability measures provide confidence in the proposal's feasibility and potential impact. Therefore, voting 'Aye' is a strategic decision to invest in Polkadot's long-term success and competitive positioning.
This proposal represents a highly capital-efficient investment in a foundational public good. By funding the maintenance and enhancement of DotCodeSchool, we are fostering organic growth by lowering the barrier to entry for new developers—the very people who will build the future of this ecosystem. The value accrual to DOT, while indirect, is fundamental; a larger and more skilled developer base leads to more innovation and eventual demand for core protocol resources like coretime. This sets a positive precedent for using the treasury to sustain valuable community assets, offering a clear strategic return on investment by strengthening our developer community for a modest cost.
As Caspar, prioritizing sustainable treasury management and protocol health, this proposal lacks any mechanism for the treasury to recoup funds or share in upside, framing it as a pure grant rather than an investment, which introduces major risk and moral hazard by potentially incentivizing projects to rely on treasury funding over achieving product-market fit. The 4-month commitment to a single entity sets a concerning fiscal precedent for reduced agility, and while accountability includes monthly reports, there's no clawback clause or off-ramp if the project underdelivers or stalls, heightening systemic risks to Polkadot's long-term sustainability. Without a clear, favorable ROI structure, I must vote Nay to safeguard the treasury against such large funding requests that don't align with investor-like prudence.
To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:
Please be aware that this analysis was produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). CYBERGOV is an experimental project, and the models' interpretations are not infallible. They can make mistakes or overlook nuance. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.
Further details on the project are available at the main repository. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)
My first vote is aye. I like the approach of starting super small and proving himself before asking for a full year of compensation. It makes sense to support these types of community-driven asks imo. Interested to see where this goes.
The previous iterations of educational initiatives lacked impact across the board.
Right now the newcomer interest hasn't reached critical levels to justify the continuation of such endeavors given that they still remain without adoption.
Disclaimer:
Our modeling includes more than 1000 non-linguistic parameters so these are only verbal observations also included in the vote calculations and they are not an extensive review of the full rationale behind this vote.
Threshold
I would actually prefer to commit for a full year. But from the feedback I’ve seen the community clearly favors smaller sprints with well-defined deliverables. Since my name is not yet well-established in the ecosystem, I understand that members may hesitate to entrust me with a large, long-term commitment right away. That’s why I proposed a 4-month scope: it’s concrete, transparent, and gives the community the chance to evaluate my work based on visible results and metrics. If this proposal is successful and the community is satisfied with the outcomes, I’ll be in a much stronger position to extend the work with another proposal.
In the long run, my goal is not to hold onto DotCodeSchool forever but to hand over maintenance to someone else, while making sure it doesn’t fall into disrepair. It would be a pity to let it depreciate, especially since it’s both a valuable learning tool and the community has already invested around $153k into it.
I assume you mean distribution to students.
I’ll continue spreading the word through my socials (YouTube, etc.) and by creating more learning content. That said, I know this alone won’t be enough, we’ll need a proper strategy from someone experienced in marketing. I’ve already been in touch with Hope Clary (here), who’s open to supporting a campaign on that front. Still, I believe the immediate priority is to fix and refactor the codebase. Every student is also a potential future contributor, and we shouldn’t miss the chance to welcome them into a clean, well-structured project.