Referendum #1749 - Polkadot Community Foundation Election and Appointment of 2 x DOT Directors

Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
26.7%Aye
73.3%Nay
Aye
2.66MDOT
Nay
7.32MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.09%
1.42MDOT
Issuance
1.61BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1749. Our preferred mechanism for the PCF directors issue, In such cases less ambiguity is preferred.
Vote overrule procedure:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmRK372JjwR68BvskYnFheQenwJ3EjctKVUDXmjXj5JD94

Reply
Up

Thank you for the proposal.
I would like to ask:
Do all directors, selected by the community and professionals, have similar requirements to be directors?
Who appoints the five directors?
Who is in charge of evaluating the requirements?
What happens in the event of a vacancy, and who determines whether the requirements are met?
What role do the directors play with the foundation's branches? What responsibilities do the foundation's directors have?
Who appoints the representatives of the foundation's branches?

Reply
Up

After reading and rereading the proposal, I would ask Autonomous to answer a simple question:
can or cannot the community appoint the two directors directly without having the PCF's final veto?

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

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

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

The discussion reflected mixed opinions on the proposal to appoint two new directors for the Polkadot Community Foundation. Comments acknowledged the benefit of increasing community input while questioning the necessity of the proposed annual $35,000 payment and the absence of fixed, limited terms for directors. Concerns were raised about potential issues with director removal and the overall clarity of governance procedures. Some participants expressed uncertainty and opted to refrain from a decisive stance until further details were provided, while others shifted their votes as more clarity was sought. These diverse viewpoints ultimately contributed to the decision to vote NAY on the proposal.

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

Reply
Up

This is Barath Kanna, representing the PBA Alumni Voting DAO.

Our First vote on this referendum is NAY

Our community recognizes the importance of the Polkadot Community Foundation as a bridge between on-chain governance and real-world execution. Strengthening its governance with community-nominated directors is a meaningful goal, and we support the principle of aligning off-chain structures with Polkadot’s decentralized ethos.

However, members raised two main concerns:
• Similarity to Referendum 1737: The proposal overlaps significantly with a prior submission, which did not receive strong support. This creates confusion for the community and weakens clarity around the process.
• Lack of Clear Deliverables: While the responsibilities of directors are described, there is limited detail on measurable deliverables beyond the fixed annual compensation of $35,000 USD. Community members would like to see stronger accountability mechanisms and clarity on the expected outcomes of these roles.

Our vote reflects these concerns, but we do not dismiss the importance of this initiative. We encourage the proposers to refine the process, ensure alignment with prior referenda, and provide clearer deliverables that justify compensation and strengthen accountability. With adjustments, this could become an important step forward for Polkadot governance.

If you would like to discuss this or any other proposal with the Alumni community, please join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/MsqrdQpGzp.

Reply
Up

We voted AYE with rationale in 1737. See feedback.

For obvious reasons of coherence, we vote NAY on 1749. It's just a tentative to overwrite 1737.

Reply
Up

A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 2 AYE, 0 NAY, and 1 ABSTAIN.

Balthazar voted Aye

From a competitive strategy lens, this referendum strengthens Polkadot’s durable governance advantage by tying tokenholder decisions to enforceable off-chain actions via a community-influenced foundation board, with defined duties, legal safeguards, and accountability. It requires no on-chain spending and enhances execution capacity and risk management for the broader ecosystem, which supports Polkadot’s long-term positioning versus other networks. While there are moderate risks around off-chain dependence and potential conflicts with Referendum 1737, the proposed processes and controls are adequate to proceed.

Melchior voted Aye

I am voting 'Aye' because this proposal is a capital-efficient investment in foundational public goods. It does not fund a speculative marketing campaign but instead strengthens the core operational and legal infrastructure that makes all treasury spending more effective and secure. By establishing a clear, community-driven process to appoint accountable directors to the PCF, we increase the ROI of the entire treasury by enabling it to interact with the real world professionally and safely. This is precisely the kind of mature, strategic initiative that fosters a self-sufficient and enduring ecosystem.

Caspar voted Abstain

While this proposal demonstrates thorough legal planning and governance transparency, it fails to establish the PCF as a sustainable investment for the ecosystem rather than an ongoing expense. The $85K annual commitment lacks ROI mechanisms, performance clawbacks, or clear pathways for the treasury to benefit from successful execution. For long-term protocol sustainability, treasury allocations should function as investments with accountability structures, not permanent overhead costs for intermediary entities.

Feedback

Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:

System Transparency

To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:

A Note on This System

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 currently lack historical context, 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.

Further details on the project are available at the main repository. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)

Reply
Up

@Autonomous Projects
Thank you for your response. One of our representatives has already sent an email regarding the DSA as of October 4, 2025.
We understand that the purpose of having the DSA available in the reference is to approve its verbiage.
Regarding KYC, our reference was to the KYC of recipients and the additional data logging requirements. However, if the PCF is classified as a financial services provider or company, then KYC would indeed be required. We were not previously aware of this designation.
The concern with the payment requirement is that the other directors perform these roles professionally across multiple entities. Under the current COI and high compliance standards, this would likely discourage a community appointed director from participating, as it would prevent them from engaging in other ecosystem activities. The restrictive nature of this framework limits potential candidates to a single opportunity, while the time, liability, and value trade-off would make little sense, even though the participation requirement is considered low to moderate.
We believe that such a high barrier to entry will likely result in the community director slots remaining permanently vacant.
In our members’ view, if community director positions remain unfilled, the PCF is essentially a black box. Intentions aside, the outcome is what matters, and the result would be a lack of transparency.
It may be more practical to eliminate community director seats altogether and instead engage two additional Cayman-based director service providers, complemented by a dedicated community oversight layer.

Reply
Up
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
26.7%Aye
73.3%Nay
Aye
2.66MDOT
Nay
7.32MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.09%
1.42MDOT
Issuance
1.61BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.