Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is ABSTAIN.
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 one aye and one nay votes from eight available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
One voter expressed concern that the proposal retrospectively sought compensation for work that had been previously agreed to be uncompensated, noting it covered efforts on the scure-sr25519 package already addressed under a different funding proposal at a much lower cost. They argued that requesting nearly double the original development cost contradicted the initial agreement, despite acknowledging the technical value and significant contribution to enhancing the ecosystem. This raised doubts about the appropriateness of the cost escalation and reimbursement method, leading the voter to lean toward an abstention in the overall decision.
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
Le Nexus voted NAY!
We value the technical importance of this library, but the lack of clarity on individual contributions, the disproportionate budget, and the contradiction with the initial “uncompensated” understanding make this retroactive request difficult to justify. Stronger transparency, clear cost justification, and evidence of ecosystem impact would be needed before we could support it.
Le Nexus stays open to any questions or discussions on OpenGov proposals. Join our DV Office English channel on Discord
Right now Saxemberg's scores for retroactive proposals are heavily penalized. This is done so that Opengov doesn't wake up to a 5-6 or 7 figure bill for work it didn't know was paying. Right now only wallets core efforts, Mimir, explorers and RPCs have a positive retroactive score.
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.
A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 2 AYE, 0 NAY, and 1 ABSTAIN.
From a competitive strategy perspective, funding the curation that brought a native, audited sr25519 JS/TS library into the ecosystem materially improves Polkadot’s developer experience, security, and tooling performance—advantages that compound across wallets and dApps and are tightly coupled to the relay chain’s cryptography. The work is completed, the cost is modest and well rationalized, and the benefits are sustainable infra rather than hype. While retroactive payments warrant caution, the risk-adjusted strategic value justifies approval.
This proposal represents a textbook example of a high-ROI, capital-efficient investment in the ecosystem's foundational infrastructure. Rather than funding a speculative marketing campaign, this treasury spend retroactively compensates the expert coordination required to produce a core public good—an audited, pure JS/TS cryptographic library. This directly enables organic growth by lowering friction for all developers, improving application security and performance, and ultimately driving long-term value accrual to the DOT token by fostering a richer application layer. It sets a positive precedent for proactive, competent teams who deliver tangible value before seeking compensation.
While the scure-sr25519 library provides clear ecosystem value and the work has been completed successfully, this proposal lacks a mechanism for the treasury to participate in any commercial upside. The retroactive nature, though reducing delivery risk, sets a concerning precedent for unilateral coordination work without pre-approval. The treasury should function as an investor, not just a grantor, particularly for commercially valuable infrastructure like cryptographic libraries that enable business applications.
Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:
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. 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 :)
Could Paul Miller make a statement on this ref ?