DeFi Infrastructure & Tooling Bounty Top-Up by Velocity Labs & Co

Hi, shouldnt Velocity Lab abstain from this proposal if they are a direct beneficiary if it gets approved?

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1743. DeFi Infrastructure & Tooling Bounty Top-Up by Velocity Labs & Co. Hopefully this extension in scope and funding gets reflected in the results.
Vote overrule process:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmVk6LCG6N8uPcactMSnm8UPB4F6HDjmBBUky7jZZYXsmp

I fully recognize and appreciate the importance of having a bounty focused on CEX and DEX integrations, as these efforts are vital for the ecosystem’s growth and interoperability. At the same time, I also understand that certain operational aspects may not be fully transparent, even though, ideally, greater clarity would be beneficial.

That said, I feel compelled to vote NAY at this time. My hesitation is not a reflection of the value of the work itself, but rather stems from a combination of factors: while I understand that the price of DOT has decreased and that the requested amount is roughly equivalent in stablecoin terms, it may be more prudent to wait for stablecoin integration for bounties in order to avoid having too many DOT locked within this bounty. Additionally, there is currently a lack of clear guidelines, documentation, and information on the processes and management practices employed by the curators. Having these elements in place would provide the community with more confidence and a stronger foundation to support such a proposal.

I hope this feedback can be taken constructively, as I fully support efforts to improve transparency and structure in future iterations of this bounty.

Hello there,

The Bounty page has this information:

Can you confirm who the 2 curators that have no on-chain ID are? Can you clarify whether these two curators will also be paid as part of the retroactive payment requested in this proposal?

Many thanks.

My first vote is NAY. While I recognize the value of some of the integrations already delivered, the request for 1M DOT lacks the level of detail needed for voters to make an informed decision. For an ask of this scale, the community deserves more transparency and accountability.

Key concerns and missing pieces:

Pipeline transparency – No full list of pending applicants or clear criteria for how projects are prioritized and approved.

Impact measurement – Success is framed only in terms of “number of integrations,” with no metrics on actual adoption, usage, liquidity growth, or user impact attributable to treasury spending.

Financial accountability – No detailed breakdown of how the $2.9M already spent was deployed per project milestone, nor any independent audit or ROI analysis. The retroactive curator fee also isn’t backed by hours worked or market benchmarks.

Governance and oversight – The full proposal does not list the current curator set, although I did see a commenter mention it was available on your website. For a request of this size, curator identities should be clearly stated in the proposal itself. Beyond that, there have been past concerns in the ecosystem around gatekeeping and self-interest from at least one curator involved, which makes transparency and accountability even more important here. I won’t call out individuals, but I encourage voters to do their own diligence and form their own view.

Scope creep into dApps – This proposal moves beyond the original focus on infra and tooling into directly funding dApps. While that might fit the new Polkadot Hub direction, it’s a big shift with no clear rules on what qualifies, how double-funding will be avoided given parachains and other treasury grants already back dApps, or what milestones would define success.

Benchmarking – No comparison against what other ecosystems pay for equivalent integrations, leaving questions about whether treasury is overpaying.

In short, this proposal asks the community to approve >$4M USD equivalent without providing the basic information needed to judge efficiency, outcomes, or oversight. Until there’s clarity on pipeline, KPIs, audited accounting, curator identities, and a sustainability roadmap, I cannot support this request.

Dear Proposer,

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

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 one aye and one nay votes from eight available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

One voter lauded the team's key role in the network’s transition and its significant contributions, while others expressed reservations. Several participants abstained, citing the substantial funding request and requesting clearer details on past expenditures, the sustainability of the funded initiatives, and projected returns. They questioned how many of the 30 projects remained active and valuable to the ecosystem and demanded more robust ROI analyses, particularly regarding allocations for CEX integrations. One voter cast a firm opposition due to similar concerns regarding costs and unclear benefits. Overall, the feedback mixed commendation for past achievements with caution about the sizeable financial ask and its strategic justifications.

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 V Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

One of the most useful bounty for the ecosystem.

We agreed on The White Rabbit's feedback about transparency, it's one of our main guideline: we should avoid the "Trust me bro" culture whenever possible.

This being said, we are very pleased about the provided answer, and yes, the DeFi Builders Program website is definitely a very good step in that direction.
Considering the size of the Bounty, a monthly report should be great, even if we agree that we prefer results than bureaucracy.

Keep the good work.

TruthDAO voted NAY

While the proposal reached the threshold for a large-scale spend, opponents raised concerns that for requests of this size, much more detailed information is required. For example:

•	There is no clear breakdown of how the $2.9M previously spent was allocated across projects, what was delivered, and what ROI (return on investment) was achieved.

•	Of the 30 funded projects, how many remain active and deliver real value to the ecosystem? If some only “launched once” with no ongoing usage, it’s hard to justify their long-term significance.

•	Parity itself has DeFi support programs planned for after the Hub launch—how does this proposal avoid overlap?

•	Can the team provide a clearer pipeline of future integrations rather than broad categories?

See all voter feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate