Threshold
We need some changes. There is a need to introduce a rotation with new curators, I had an experience with the roots program that showed me a need for this. (most members are part of the same DAO and this introduces some Bias from their part, experience is also questionable in most cases)
Bureaucracy can lock its members in place by trapping them in an "iron cage" of rules and procedures, leading to inertia, dis-empowerment, and a reduced ability to adapt or act creatively, ultimately stifling individual freedom and the organization's original goals, a concept first described by sociologist Max Weber
To the point, I had an experience with the Child bounty Roots program that showed that bureaucratic mechanics are jettison Good standing members from the community (as myself), clearly not aligning with what the program is trying to achieve but damaging its reach, and making even more difficult to achieve the targets of the program itself.
The Events Bounty team gets it. They are critical thinkers with a pragmatic outlook and have played a significant role in successfully hosting Polkadot events worldwide.
What we will do without the Events Bounty?
Great example - for others - of meticulous spending audits, community service and strategic mindset.
Big aye with my small DOT
The event bounty plays a vital role in supporting the organization and execution of events across the ecosystem, and I deeply appreciate the dedication and hard work of the curators and everyone involved. However, I believe there is room for improvement to ensure that these efforts have a more consistent and sustainable long-term impact.
One area that stands out is budget management. When reviewing some requests, there does not always seem to be a clear and consistent approach to how funds are allocated. This lack of alignment makes it difficult to fully understand how resources are being distributed and whether they are being used effectively. A more transparent and standardized framework for budgeting would help ensure that funds are directed toward initiatives that deliver measurable, lasting value to the ecosystem.
I also believe that events should not be treated only as one-time occasions. They should serve as opportunities to grow and strengthen local communities. A single event can have an immediate impact, but strong local communities create ongoing engagement, attract new members, and support continuous development over time.
In this context, initiatives like Roots would be more effective if managed entirely by recognized local communities rather than individuals. Even a small meetup takes time, effort, and local expertise. These tasks may seem simple, but they require consistent dedication and coordination. It is difficult for one person to manage everything alone and achieve sustainable growth, while a community has the structure, network, and shared responsibility to make these initiatives thrive.
For these reasons, I will abstain from voting at this time. I hope to see improvements in budget practices, stronger coordination between regions, and a greater focus on empowering local communities to support long-term ecosystem growth.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
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 five aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The vote reflected a balanced view on the proposal, as members supported the top-up while calling for a refreshed set of curators. They highlighted that the bounty had operated effectively with transparency and compliance, yet noted that an entrenched curator system might hinder adaptability. Concerns were raised about bureaucratic rigidity and the risk of sidelining dynamic contributors. Several voters expressed hope for future curator rotation and new voices emerging within the ecosystem, while others pointed to the importance of ongoing operations, particularly following a compliance audit. Overall, the decision acknowledged the program’s achievements in community engagement and events organization while advocating for evolution in its management structure.
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
My first vote is NAY.
To be clear, I do see the value of the Events Bounty and support its continuation in principle. It has enabled Polkadot to show up at major conferences, helped grassroots meetups thrive, and I’ve seen firsthand that some curators (like Tycho, who I worked with recently) appear to be dedicated and hardworking. That said, this specific proposal has several issues that need addressing before I can support it:
Curator integrity – One curator has a reputation for gatekeeping and dismissing new builders without giving them a fair chance. Concentrating ~1M DOT per year under a set that includes such behavior is a systemic risk. I won’t name names, but I encourage voters to do their own diligence. Rebalancing the set with curators who have a track record of openness would make an aye vote easier to justify.
Governance flexibility – There is no straightforward mechanism to add or remove curators today. And with the passing of ref #1701 recently, which provides even more power to Bounties and makes it even harder for new refs to pass (such as a proposal for a curator change), the set is effectively locked without whale-level coordination, and too many seats are concentrated among close associates for this to be a reality imho. This creates risks of bias, limited perspective, and prioritization of their own efforts over broader ecosystem needs.
Marketing overlap – The Events Bounty allows up to 10% of each event budget for marketing. Yet we already have a dedicated Marketing Bounty for this purpose. Without clearer coordination and performance tracking between the two, this risks duplicating spend and reducing accountability.
Good to haves are increasing the range of events supported by it. Specially out of the web3 realm, more sophisticated events addressing other targets, etc.
Improving feedback to denied fund recipients.
Long term bounty curator funding should be revisited but that is an issue that affects all bounties and should be addressed to them as a group hopefully (currently this bounty curator payment remains at 11% of expenditures).
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
The Events Bounty works diligently with many teams around the world. PolkaPort East is one of them, and organised HKFTW and Consensus HK with the EB last year, which were both a great success. Slightly faster response times by the EB team would be appreciated, but we also understand the constraints the team is under given the amount of workload. We support this top up request to ensure continued Polkadot event funding around the globe.