De-Risking the Treasury

Quick Q:

In the full proposal doc:
Project Lead: An experienced Polkadot builder with prior contributions to the ecosystem.
-> There is an hyperlink to github, is it supposed to be linked to a specific github?

The current hyperlink is:
https://github.com/?tab=repositories

Not very useful here ;)
So who's the project Lead ?

Thanks for the proposal, glad to see that your tests on Kusama worked out and I am very aligned with the need for accountability and follow up on treasury spends. I appreciate that you have already come with an MVP and a video demo, showing you want to be exemplary, also seen by showing example of what can be done with this tool by presenting your own proposal with clear milestones defined and explained.

I do have a few questions:

• Could you please clarify who the guardians would be? I understand it says decentralized group of guardians, would this be fully permissionless or would there be any prerequisites (for example: verified identity)? How do you expect to do the onboarding mentioned on milestone #3?
• Would guardians need to place a deposit to delay or cancel a spend? (It made me think of Kleros and dispute challenges - skin in the game stake)
• On which governance track would the refs to delay or cancel a payment be (always treasurer track?) and do you envision any mechanisms to prevent abuse/spam?

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY. Below is the evaluation of our voting policy v0.3 on this referendum:

SMALL SPENDER
-------------
8 available members
🟢 1 • 🔴 2 • ⚪️ 0
✓ ≥37.5% required participation met
✘ Ayes ≤50.0% of non-abstain votes
▶ Aye/abstain conditions not met
🔴 NAY

Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The proposals were examined with varied viewpoints. One member expressed concerns that investing in additional governance tools might detract from Polkadot’s core mission of fostering disruptive applications, noting an overemphasis on internal processes. Another member acknowledged the potential benefits of the experiment for improving governance, highlighting that it could simplify chain usability while cautioning that growth should remain the primary focus. A further critique pointed out that the overall budget appeared excessively high for a first full version and argued that the fee structure should adjust based on expenditure, suggesting that initial work should be confined to a shorter term to allow community evaluation before further funding.

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