I see several red flags here. This feels like putting the cart before the horse. There are many fundamental steps that need to be completed before paying users...
questionable choice to rush a DCA into 5 days, all while the Treasury already holds some stables, and even more questionable why DOT isnt airdropped instead. Apparently we need dot users, I am willing to aye an DOT airdrop.
The argument that one day we might switch to proof of personhood and distribute stablecoins as rewards just doesnt sit right with me. The new guidelines say, we have to give DOT more value. We want more DOT users, as simple as my buddy has now some dots and I want some too. of course you planned way more to pop but why mess up every proposal that apparently should start the "new" age of polkadot. already failed with the rushed stablecoin proposal and now this.
Edited
To make it clear, of course the community wants Proof-Of-Personhood (PoP), but this ref really lacks the basics of information and clarity.
It's a poker bet, we need to pay to see what's coming.
For any other refs, we're asking POCs or MVPs to any requester.
Some members even thought the ref was a scam by reading at 1st sight.
For some context not provided in the ref and to help understand what we are talking about : Gav at W3S 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrWioikibEI
Edited
I voted No. Even though my role as a Guardian doesn’t cover the Root track, I would like to share some thoughts. I am not familiar with who is behind Entropretty, and that may not be the most important aspect. My intention is to provide constructive feedback, as we often ask proposers for detailed explanations even on initiatives of smaller scope.
This proposal requests over 1.1M DOT for a user bootstrapping phase, yet it provides limited concrete metrics, targets, or milestones. The mechanisms for proving individuality (DIMs) are not publicly detailed, which makes it difficult to assess the technical approach and security of the system. The claim of offering “the fairest airdrop in Web3 history” is appealing, but the proposal does not explain how this fairness would be achieved or measured, nor does it provide benchmarks or KPIs for onboarding or retention.
The proposal also lacks a clearly defined operational plan, including milestones for onboarding, verification, reward distribution, or transition to a live phase. The funding is largely intended for incentives, but it is not clear how many users are expected to participate, how rewards are calculated, or how repeated verification processes will be handled. Additionally, the conversion of DOT to Hollar via DCA over four days raises questions about market impact, liquidity, and risk mitigation, and the budget breakdown is rather high-level, making it difficult to assess sustainability.
I share these points not to criticize personally, but to better understand a proposal that addresses a fundamental and important aspect of Web3. My hope is that more detailed information could help the community evaluate the proposal thoroughly and fairly.
Edited
Hi,
3 questions/concerns:
1/ Why do you want to DCA DOT into HOLLAR and not stablecoins into HOLLAR ?
There is no obvious reason to dump DOT here if the final point is to get stablecoins.
2/ Why should we fund this request without any demo of the final product?
The sentence: "Given that W3C is not released yet, some of the mechanisms / features and details are not yet public information." echoes to "Trust me bro" here.
But "Trust me bro" situations never ended well in OpenGov, leading to many dramas in the past under Giotto's run.
What if the product has a bad UI/UX?
What if the product doesn't target the good audience?
What if there is no associated marketing campaign to bootstrap users?
What if there is no use case once people are certified to be human?
3/ Why the Root track?
It's supposed to be an emergency track.
I feel the community is missing the global picture. We would need way more information to confirm this request.
We need a plan. If you can't showcase anything, it feels like we're throwing a coin in the air.
Let us know.
Edited