Link to
Bounty #70

ink! Alliance Bounty - Preparing for Polkadot Hub

142z...kM5z
9d ago
11
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Translations
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
7d
Attempts
0
Tally
9.7%Aye
90.3%Nay
Aye
≈3.04MDOT
Nay
≈28.17MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.06%
≈1.02MDOT
Issuance
≈1.62BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments
SAXEMBERG

For now this new bounty proposal seems to have certain observations.
Encode's recent referendum seems to have been rejected which makes it hard to see how the path with Encode as a community partner is viable.
All bounties need to comply with the minimum and maximum dates to have the funds used so that Opengov has a rough idea for the timing regarding new refills. Seemingly the next refill should come around March next year but it's not explicitly mentioned.
The approach of curators becoming active actors, we see as positive and expect that more bounties are straightforward about this fact and not hide it under layers of obfuscation.
Clarify the role of bounty 19, it is required and a must.
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/child-bounties?parentBountyId=19
R0GUE is a curator and a statement from this proposal about Bounty 19 is needed so Opengov can take a decision to close bounty 19 and be superseded by bounty 70 or any other actions, it seems as though bounty 19 (revisit) has not fulfilled its role given the existence of this proposal.
Given the large independence that bounties enjoy in the current Opengov framework these issues need to be addressed soon as the "let's try small and scale later" approach has led to large and uncontrollable bounties in the past regardless of small starting budgets and operations.

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.

Vote overrule process:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmV1HGkWbNz1T6ZUubAqNVGLbpWgfDMXEj5p3xLYVLV1kj

Edited

Reply
Up
SAXEMBERG

.

Edited

Reply
Up
153F...YZ3z

I strongly believe investing in ink! should be a fundamental priority for the Polkadot ecosystem. Ink! is not just “another smart contract language” — it is natively built for Substrate (or it was at least before using H160 as native Account type :(), integrates seamlessly with the Polkadot runtime environment, and allows developers to build contracts that go far beyond what Solidity was ever designed for.

While Solidity has the advantage of being widely adopted on EVM chains, it carries the same technical limitations and security pitfalls that have repeatedly caused issues across Ethereum and its L2s. By prioritizing Solidity over ink!, we risk making Polkadot dependent on a legacy stack that was never optimized for our architecture.

Ink! is safer, more efficient, and future-oriented. It allows for deeper composability with Substrate pallets, something Solidity can never achieve without cumbersome bridges or compromises.

Ink! should always have been supported and promoted as the default smart contract path in Polkadot, ensuring that the next generation of developers builds natively, securely, and with the full potential of the network in mind.

If we want Polkadot to stand out and fulfill its promise of being more than “just another EVM chain,” we must invest in ink! as the cornerstone of our smart contract ecosystem.

Reply
Up
133P...rWmG

Le Nexus voted ABSTAIN!

Our members could not reach consensus, with opinions divided

Some AYE, stressing that without ink!/PolkaVM and the future JAM model, Polkadot risks remaining “just another EVM chain.”

Others NAY, pointing to the high budget, overlap with Bounty #19 and limited adoption compared to Solidity.

Our stance is AYE to ink! in principle, but NAY in this form.

Le Nexus remains open to any questions or discussions on OpenGov proposals. Join our DV Office English channel on Discord

Reply
Up
13zn...P5ju

Dear Proposer,

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

The Big Spender track requires more than 60.0% of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.3, and any referendum in which the simple majority of voters abstain, or track-specific majority of voters aye or abstain, receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received zero aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with four members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Voters expressed skepticism about the projected return on investment for the Polkadot ecosystem, questioning how many ventures would launch using ink! They noted that the funding request appeared over-ambitious and wanted more emphasis on broadening developer adoption and integration into diverse ecosystems. Some commented that despite the team’s solid performance in technical improvements and educational efforts, the proposed allocation seemed disproportionate in light of competition from established languages like Solidity and emerging ones like Move. Concerns were raised about the long-term impact and clear path to success for ink!, leading to the decision to abstain.

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
153F...YZ3z

This is Johan, representing the PBA Alumni Voting DAO.
Our community has cast its vote on this referendum as Yay.

Our community felt that:

ink! is the cornerstone of Polkadot’s native smart contract ecosystem.

This proposal ensures the finalization of ink! v6 and its integration with PolkaVM, while maintaining essential tooling, audits, and developer support.

Strengthening ink! will attract more Rust developers, enhance network security, and position Polkadot competitively for the upcoming Hub launch and beyond.

Investing in ink! should remain a fundamental priority, as it offers deeper composability and security advantages compared to Solidity-based approaches.

Transparency in how the bounty funds are managed and how contributors can participate will be key to sustaining trust and collaboration within the community.

PBA Alumni encourages continued work on these ideas and proposals. Refinement and further implementation are key—what is a Nay today may become a strong Aye tomorrow.

Reply
Up
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
7d
Attempts
0
Tally
9.7%Aye
90.3%Nay
Aye
≈3.04MDOT
Nay
≈28.17MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.06%
≈1.02MDOT
Issuance
≈1.62BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.