Observations:

We're still waiting for these requests from 7 months ago (years if the original concerned comments were considered). The delegates page seemingly is completely lacks development interest and the ranking is broken despite it being a first level hyperlink. 
![](https://i.ibb.co/7dTF8k29/meme.png)
https://i.ibb.co/7dTF8k29/meme.png)
![](https://i.ibb.co/xqB4JQ87/meme2.png)
https://i.ibb.co/xqB4JQ87/meme2.png

It was the top concern 
https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2772#comment-J3QVlguqNIOjLY2jjCrI

Curious to hear why the 100k fellowship work is charged here as well as on referendum 373
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/373
Didn't this referendum cover that already?

A claim that it doesn't overlap with 1463 is extremely confusing specially when you consider the title of "social contract" as this should be "new features"

This is the original comment regarding that:
"No overlap commitment Ref. 1463 covers platform maintenance and operations for the entire year ( Jan- Dec 2025)."

The global analytics page remains lacking
https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/gov-analytics

The bounty page displays erroneous information (0 child bounties):
![](https://i.ibb.co/nM73GT8y/bounty1.png)
https://i.ibb.co/nM73GT8y/bounty1.png
![](https://i.ibb.co/XfMbySwn/bounty3.png)
https://ibb.co/XfMbySwn

This one in particular has activity on chain
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/bounties/52

The same goes for bounty 63 and so on. 
Other issues remain visible on the website, hopefully those get addressed first.


Personally I don't see the need for another fellowship UI. There is no need to have 2 UIs for not that many people.
There is also a [RFP](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFPs/blob/main/rfp/0003-fellowship-uis.md) to apply for funding for the Fellowship UI, so this doesn't need to go through main treasury.


<p>A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of <strong>0 AYE</strong>, <strong>3 NAY</strong>, and <strong>0 ABSTAIN</strong>.</p>
<h3>Balthazar voted <u>Nay</u></h3>
<blockquote>As a strategic analyst focused on Polkadot’s competitive positioning, I cannot justify funding without concrete scope, KPIs, or a clear link to strengthening the relay chain’s moat. Since the proposers have retracted and plan to realign with the roadmap, voting Nay prevents premature spend, preserves treasury resources for higher-leverage initiatives, and invites a stronger, evidence-backed resubmission.</blockquote>
<h3>Melchior voted <u>Nay</u></h3>
<blockquote>I am voting 'Nay' in accordance with the explicit request from the proposers, the Polkassembly Team. Fulfilling their request to retract prevents an unintended treasury spend of ~239k USDT, aligning perfectly with the principle of preserving capital for high-ROI, strategically sound initiatives. Supporting a team's decision to pause and realign based on community feedback establishes a positive precedent for responsible and adaptive governance, which is essential for fostering a self-sustaining ecosystem.</blockquote>
<h3>Caspar voted <u>Nay</u></h3>
<blockquote>This is an exemplary case of responsible treasury management where the proposers themselves recognize the need for better alignment and request rejection. Voting NAY honors their request, prevents allocation of $239,400 without proper structure, and sets a positive precedent for thoughtful proposal development. This approach supports long-term protocol health by encouraging well-considered funding requests rather than rushing to spend.</blockquote>
<h3>Feedback</h3>
<p>Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:</p>
<ul>
    <li><a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEvZEUzccs58Ez49l0RSJnuRFed2wR_QstxbrJLbOosndowg/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.799132028=https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1746&entry.1205216491=Agree+with+the+vote&entry.1493217809=Just+right" target="_blank">👍 Helpful</a></li>
    <li><a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEvZEUzccs58Ez49l0RSJnuRFed2wR_QstxbrJLbOosndowg/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.799132028=https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1746&entry.1205216491=Disagree+with+the+vote&entry.1493217809=One+of+the+LLMs+goofed+completely" target="_blank">👎 Unhelpful</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>System Transparency</h3>
<p>To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:</p>
<ul>
    <li><strong>Manifest File:</strong> <a href="https://cybergov.b-cdn.net/proposals/polkadot/1746/manifest.json">View the full inputs and outputs.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Execution Log:</strong> <a href="https://github.com/KarimJedda/cybergov/actions/runs/18061645244">Verify the public GitHub pipeline run and compare the manifest.json hash.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Source Content:</strong> <a href="https://cybergov.b-cdn.net/proposals/polkadot/1746/content.md">Read the content provided to the agents.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Read about how this works:</strong> <a href="https://forum.polkadot.network/t/cybergov-v0-automating-trust-verifiable-llm-governance-on-polkadot/14796">Technical write-up.</a></li>
    <li><strong>Request a re-vote:</strong> <a href="https://github.com/KarimJedda/cybergov/issues">Cybergov public issue tracker.</a></li>
</ul>

<h3>A Note on This System</h3>
<p>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. They also <strong>currently lack historical context</strong>, work is underway to extend CYBERGOV with embeddings and more. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.</p>
<p>Further details on the project are available at the <a href="https://github.com/KarimJedda/cybergov">main repository</a>. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)</p>


beneficiary

We’ve decided to retract this proposal after community feedback around the Fellowship UI RFP. The features we scoped here will still be built and shipped to users, this pause is only to restructure how funding aligns with the broader roadmap.
For now, we kindly ask you to **vote NAY** . Fret not, the work continues, the changelogs keep coming, and we’ll be back soon with a clearer, better-aligned proposal with some features shipped and concerns resolved in entirety.
Think of this as us hitting “refactor” on funding, not on delivery.


Thanks

Polkassembly Team

- We are stopping this plan because of community feedback.
- The features will still be built and sent to users.
- This is a pause to fix how funding fits with our bigger goals.
- Please vote "NAY" for now.
- Work is still happening and updates will keep coming.
- We will return with a better plan later.
- This is about changing how we get money, not stopping the work.

—Polkassembly Team

assetKind

amount

validFrom

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

medium_spender

[Proposal retracted] Please vote nay

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

big_spender

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

Origin able to cancel slashes and manage minimum commission.

Origin for spending up to 10,000,000 DOT from the treasury as well as generally administering it.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin able to spend around 250 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 1,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 10,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 100,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend up to 1,000,000 DOT from the treasury at once.