Thank you for your proposal.

We are voting "nay" on all proposals requesting full up-front payments (this includes bounties).

Please consider using scheduled payouts: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/treasury-guardianship/14145/9?u=gabrielj

Bounties are a great use case of scheduled payouts with monthly scheduled transfers to the bounty for example.

[@Treasury Guardian](12uzRiFHPB5tEKWQ2g7TKVcEy6QkwJR313h7gBcBMQKaQhZ7-polkadot) Appreciate the comment, but this argument doesn’t really hold up in practice. A bounty is already a sub-treasury with built-in controls, so funds aren’t “paid upfront,” they’re held under governance and only released through curator-approved payouts.

Introducing a scheduled payout on top of that adds almost no extra accountability and just duplicates the existing mechanism. Cancelling a bounty requires the same governance steps as cancelling a scheduled payout, so operationally it’s identical. 

[@OTAR](14z2CnmqMX2kcWGp5VT68sovjKXZipjkNUPtaMMnz6cjXW3q-polkadot) 

Thank you for your reply. There are clear differences in risk exposure to the treasury.

While bounties are cancelable via OpenGov, the actual mechanism to cancel a bounty is lengthy and during this time curators would need to be trusted not to act in a harmful way to the network.

Right now bounty accountability is assessed whenever the bounties ask for a top-up request. With scheduled payouts (more smaller period payouts all scheduled via a single ref) token holders would get much more accountability from curators during the bounty lifetime. It would then be feasible to enforce stricter reporting standards to token holders for example.

Furthermore, currently the intervention on bounty is limited to cancelation. Maybe such a drastic action is not always required. Let us say a bounty misses its monthly reporting deadline for example but has been performing well otherwise. In this case delaying scheduled payouts by a few weeks, to help the curators complete their reporting commitments before the next payout goes to the bounty, might be more appropriate than complete cancelation. With scheduled payouts we can delay and/or cancel.

Lastly this accountability via scheduled payouts can be easily enforced because a UI exists to track scheduled payouts and delay/cancel them if need be: https://www.treasury-guardian.app/polkadot.

Happy to discuss this more.


Paseo is very important for testing applications, Westend is continously breaking and Paseo is standing tall, big aye

It's probably slightly expensive overall for a testnet, and could be probably optimized, but we might as well spend money on useful things. 
Supportive team, teams who migrated to Paseo, and it went smoothly.

Obvious AYE.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **first** vote on this proposal is **AYE**. Below is the evaluation of our [voting policy v0.3](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.3.html) on this referendum:

```
BIG SPENDER
-----------
8 available members
🟢 4 • 🔴 0 • ⚪️ 0
✓ ≥50.0% required participation met
▶ Ayes ≥60.0% of all votes
🟢 AYE
```

Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The voters backed the funding request for Paseo’s second top-up, emphasizing its critical role in maintaining essential infrastructure and broader ecosystem stability. They noted that the proposed 6-month extension with approximately 113,217 DOT would bolster core group operations, support runtime upgrades, validator infrastructure, developer relations, and continuous testing. Their comments underscored the significance of ensuring seamless operations during the transition to a new funding model planned for 2026. Overall, they believed that sustaining Paseo's work served the common good and vital interests of the ecosystem, meriting treasury support and continued investment.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmUzgVMqRhvsK3Qufp1zdejJfwyNUXDxvdhTCErgnj3mR8).

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](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1786. Paseo Developer Testnet 2nd Top-up Request. Paseo is the current Polkadot testnet and support for operations is a must.

Vote overrule procedure:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmSiTUbZzHLBNxVEdpboHx3cB57Vnfj9RUTisDK6DEdjZd

Paseo is somewhat useful, but not overly so. It shouldn't exceed $50,000.

[@16M5...VNvZ](16M5hAMWDUi3VMJKjzyce17DGGRfxunLWapGq8izAwEfVNvZ-polkadot) Hey! I'd be interested about hearing the reasoning for your comment. What do you think the current testnet lacks or could do better to provide further value ?

Thanks!

Following the successful execution of the first 2025 funding cycle, this proposal requests a 6-month top-up for the Paseo Bounty (#37) to ensure uninterrupted operations through Q4 2025 and Q1 2026.

We are requesting ≈ 113,217 DOT (≈ $344,946 at EMA7 = $3.046731) to sustain the ongoing work of the Paseo core group and service providers covering runtime upgrades, validator infrastructure, DevRel support, and continuous testing across parachain and system chain releases.

This top-up ensures operational continuity ahead of the migration to the multi-asset bounty pallet and stablecoin-based funding model planned for 2026. Any unused funds from this period will be returned to the treasury or converted into  USDT/C-based once they become available.

📄 [Full proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cF716ro0fvMEBPnO5AuEvv7bjL87vBPiLe5lgPSSqCA/edit?usp=sharing)
📎 [Previous top-up proposal](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1487)
📎 [Paseo Bounty (#37)](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/bounties/37)

- The Paseo Bounty team is asking for more money to keep working until early 2026.
- They need about 113,217 DOT, which is about $344,946.
- This money will pay for important work like updates, computer systems, and testing.
- It helps the team continue their work without stopping.
- Any extra money left over will be given back or saved for later.
- This is a temporary plan before they switch to a new way of getting money in 2026.
- You can read the full plan and see past requests using the links provided.

amount

beneficiary

Executed

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

ConfirmStarted

Confirmed

big_spender

Paseo Developer Testnet 2nd Top-up Request

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

technical_maintenance

prosperity_emergency

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

Origin able to cancel slashes and manage minimum commission.

Origin for spending up to 10,000,000 DOT from the treasury as well as generally administering it.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin able to spend around 250 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 1,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 10,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 100,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend up to 1,000,000 DOT from the treasury at once.