I want to raise a serious concern regarding how IBP budgets and allocations are being structured and justified.

First, it is **difficult to understand why budgeting continues to be based on AWS-level infrastructure cost assumptions when, in reality, a significant portion of providers in the ecosystem do not operate on AWS.** as has been discussed in this thread:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/outstanding-questions-about-the-infrastructure-builders-program-ibp-bounty/16633

IBP members rank 6 already run on **owned hardware that was previously funded** with previous bounties when they reached rank 4:

![](https://i.ibb.co/svMj9Nn8/r4.png)

So basically IBP members just need to be paid for bandwith. Why do the include hardware costs in the proposal when the Treasury has already funded that and they own the infra? 

**Also, the gap between AWS-based cost estimates and actual operating costs is considerable**.  What IBP operators run in AWS? How many operators are running their nodes in providers that are substantially more cost-efficient and pocketing the difference? There needs to be far greater transparency on how these figures are derived and whether they accurately reflect real-world infrastructure spending.



Second, the proposal to reduce Coinstudio’s curator compensation by 50% may appear reasonable at first glance, but it lacks proper context. **The role has been compensated at approximately $3,400 per month** for an extended period, yet there has been **limited clarity or structured justification of the actual deliverables and ongoing responsibilities** as [discussed here](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/coinstudio-paid-3400-per-month-as-curator-excuse-me/16442) particularly given that much of the process now appears to be largely automated or minimally maintained. This raises legitimate questions about efficiency, accountability, and whether compensation is still aligned with actual value delivered.

It increasingly feels like the ecosystem has been significantly overcharged and inefficiently managed over time, and that these practices are continuing, albeit at a reduced scale.

There is a growing perception that costs and compensation structures have not been properly aligned with actual operational value or transparency, which has led to concerns about long-term sustainability and fairness within the ecosystem.

Even if adjustments are now being made, they appear incremental rather than addressing the underlying issues in a meaningful way.

I find it excessive that almost $400K is being requested for roughly one and a half months of backdated payments.

If the previous bounty ran out of funds, this should have been addressed with a new proposal at the time, rather than retroactively validating costs for 12 operators. It seems more reasonable to only compensate the 8 operators included in the new proposal, instead of extending payments to the full previous set.

I don’t recall ever seeing evidence that all 12 IBP members have been running Bulletin nodes. It would be helpful to clarify who has actually been operating nodes in practice, and whether this has been consistent over the relevant period.

Finally, the AWS-based cost assumptions don’t reflect how these nodes are actually run in practice, which likely leads to significantly inflated estimates. The proposal needs a proper review of scope and realistic infrastructure costs.

![](https://i.ibb.co/svCCLr7m/up.png)
![](https://i.ibb.co/5h4DnpXt/up3.png)


wait!

pause the chain.
call the validators.
summon the forensic apes 🧠💀🚨🦍

stakeplus got **$485k** for ref [601](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/601) in april 2024.

delivered? nothing. 🫥
refunded? also nothing. 🕳️
even the promised refund got rugged. 🫠
accountability? evaporated into the void. 💨

then they got **another $545k** from this bounty since then 💸

including **$110k** for “engineering hours” 🛠️

engineering what exactly?
a treasury drain? 🪠
the infinite grift glitch? ♾️
a dot-to-dust converter? 🔴➡️🌫️
a decentralised vacuum cleaner for public funds? 🧹💸

and now they want **$145k MORE** for 2026?

LMAOOOOOOO 😂
nah fam. 😭

this is not governance.
this is clown-fi with multisig seasoning. 🤡🍜

bro.

this is not a proposal.
this is a wallet-connected mugging. 🔌🔪

this is not governance.
this is rug-fi.
this is proof-of-bagholder-sacrifice. 🩸🛐

no wonder etf inflow is tumbleweeds doing side quests. 🌵🎮
no wonder dot is flirting with getting nuked out of top 40 📉☢️
retail sees this and panic-sells like a leverage ape at liquidation o’clock. 🦍💣

curators who approved this? explain. 👀
aye voters? enjoy unlocking the accountability arc. ⚖️🍿

this is not a bounty.
it’s a bagholder sacrifice ritual. 🩸🛐

**if this proposal makes it, sell dot. delete wallet. touch grass. change identity. run.** 🏃‍♂️💨🌱🪪

A brief observation on current governance dynamics: using delegated voting weight to approve proposals that directly financially benefit the voter is a glaring conflict of interest.
While OpenGov's code doesn't strictly prevent it, our social contract always has. It is hard to ignore a slight decay in governance etiquette lately, where these ethical boundaries are increasingly being blurred or ignored entirely. 

[@helixstreet.foundation](16WzVw5JDCXLiA3t5D4LL15S2sqSBtCsjVNXkwLCVxGdeQGj-polkadot) So true - in fact all the AYEs are from the Cartel or Cartel related 

**wait wait!**

hold the parachains.
ping the validators.
wake the treasury goblins 🧠💀🚨🦍

so this **"decentralised" crew** is out here calling themselves the **"IT department of polkadot"?**

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 😂

**polkadot.com** served through **github pages.**
yes. **github.**
as in **microsoft-owned github** 🪟💀

**microsoft-owned infra serving polkadot** is not irony anymore,
it’s **governance performance art.** 🎭🔥

and **wiki.polkadot.com?**
**netlify.**

backed by **kleiner perkins** and **andreessen horowitz.**

because apparently the **$10M-funded "decentralised IT department" of Polkadot** can’t even host its own damn website without **big tech training wheels** 🫠

**ten. million. dollars.**
and the infra stack is still giving **"free tier startup weekend"** energy 🧃🪦

what exactly are we funding here?

**IT?**
or a **decentralised shrug-as-a-service protocol?** 🤷‍♂️⛓️

a **treasury-powered ctrl+c ctrl+v department?** 🖨️💸
a **public-funds-to-nothing bridge?** 🌉🕳️
a **multisig daycare with invoice privileges?** 🍼🔐
a **github dependency cosplay guild?** 🐙🎪

and **snapshots?**

they can’t even host those?

the poor **Parity engineers** still have to run the actually useful stuff at **snapshots.polkadot.io** while the "IT department" is busy farming treasury emissions like **yield peasants in a clown vault** 🧑‍🔧💀

so what is it?

**laziness?**
**incompetence?**
or are they simply **not trusted to touch the sharp objects?** 🔪🧀

because at this point the options are:

**they can’t do it**
**they won’t do it**
**nobody sane lets them do it**

and somehow **all three are bearish** 📉☢️

this is not an **IT department.**
this is a **IT-desk-themed treasury extractor** 🎧🪠💸

this is not **decentralised infrastructure.**
this is **microsoft-fi with netlify seasoning** 🪟🍜

this is **not operational excellence.**
this is **"please approve our invoice while github does the job"** 🧾🤡

**W3F, seriously:**

how long are you going to keep feeding this **money pit?**

because retail sees this stuff and doesn’t think **"wow, decentralisation"**

they think:

**"bro, the chain has a $10M IT department and still can’t host its own website?"**

then they sell dot, delete the wallet, and go emotionally recover in **solana memecoin trenches** like traumatised liquidity refugees 🏃‍♂️💨🌵

**funding this is not governance.**

it’s **proof-of-bagholder-sacrifice par excellence** 🩸🛐

**VOTE NAY. 🛑**
It’s time to stop the treasury rug. 💸🕳️
Take a hard look at the current price of DOT and compare it to this massive 1.22 MILLION DOT request. Asking for this kind of volume in the current market conditions is a massive dilution event for the rest of us while retail bleeds. 📉🩸
There is absolutely no skin in the game here—just a coordinated rigging of the treasury to extract public funds without accountability. 🤡⚙️
This isn't an "IT department," it's a liquidity extraction event.
End the grift. Protect the treasury. 🛡️🔴

10 coordinated accounts (half of them likely sybils) running a 24/7 treasury heist. 🚨
Forget AI productivity—this is just a cartel LARPing as a "fantasy IT department" with one single goal: endless extraction of public funds. 💸🕳️
The "accountability" docs are an absolute joke. Stop funding the grift. 🛑

The entire bounty curator system is fundamentally broken. 🛑 This isn't governance; it's a cartel. Give these people an ounce of power, and they instantly abuse it—acting like untouchable gods while they drain the treasury. ⚡🏛️


**wait wait. I SAID WAIT!**

stop the referendum.
freeze the treasury faucet.
summon the vote-forensics orangutans 🧠💀🚨🦧

**LMAOOOOOOOO look at the votes.** 😂

**188.4K DOT** on the aye side.
and **122.8K DOT** is basically the IBP cinematic universe voting **AYE** on its own free-buffet ticket 🍽️💸

this is **proof-of-recursive-grift** ♾️🪠

**Amforc, the high priest of grift yoga:**
**67.5K DOT** 🧘‍♂️📜

bro bends governance like it owes him rent.
and didn’t their **“LEGAL BOUNTY”** just get absolutely vaporised by W3F?
**OBLITERATED.**
deleted.
sent to the jurisprudence shadow realm ⚖️💀
but here they are again, voting **AYE** like nothing happened.

and **GATOTECH, the loyal sidecar of the treasury scooter:**
**45K DOT** 🛵💸

**ROTKO, patron saint of incompetence, the forever-inactive Polkadot validator:**
**10K DOT** 🫠

and then…

**Gustav-the-poor from Dwellir.**
**300 DOT**
three. hundred. dot. 🥲

bro.
the docs have been doing laps in DarkGov like cursed bedtime stories. 📄🌑

**Nigeria expense: $2.6K per month.**
**Charged: $27K per month.**

that’s not margin.
that’s a spiritual experience. 🧘‍♂️💰

**90% profit energy** and this is your conviction?
**300 DOT?**

where did all the DOT go, my guy?

did it fall into a validator crevice?
get rugged by hotel breakfast at a web3 conference?
convert itself into vibes and depreciation? 🕳️🥐📉

and where is **Turboflakes?**

sir, the grift-signal is in the sky. 🦇💸
**when are you going to stop tending to your third-grade "validator software" and vote? or are you scared?**

**Tom StakePlus, patron saint of grift, curator of the "vanished deliverables" museum, where are you?**

is this not your cue?
come save the show with the legendary treasury DOT from the **"refund soon bro" dimension** 🫥🧾

and by the way, **WHERE EXACTLY IS CHAOS DAO?**

**LMAOOOOOOO.**
**DAO?** 👀

brother this is a **FUCKING DISCORD GROUP** wearing a decentralisation costume from Spirit Halloween. 🎃🤡
**one delegation accounts for 86% of the voting power?**
eighty. six. percent.
that is not a DAO.
that is a **single whale in a group chat with governance cosplay DLC.** 🐋💬🎮
come on **Chaos DAO.**
ride in.

**SAVE YOUR GRIFTER FRIENDS!**
and collect your take rate.
pretend it’s community alignment 🫶💸

because without you, this whole buffet line is looking dangerously under-catered.

and if that fails? 🥺

then I guess the grift needs the sacred **W3F blessing hand** again. ✋✨

maybe a lil’ governance miracle.
maybe a soft institutional pat on the head.
maybe one more **"strategic ecosystem support"** prayer candle. 🕯️📉

because let’s be real:

this is not conviction voting.
this is not public-goods funding.
this is not decentralised accountability.
this is the **invoice class forming a human shield around the money printer.** 🧍‍♂️🧍‍♂️🧍‍♂️🖨️💸

aye voters are not supporting infra.
they are supporting the sacred doctrine of:
**"bro please approve, we already made plans for the money"** 🧾🙏

this is not governance.
this is **griftocracy with delegated seasoning** 🍜🤡
this is not treasury stewardship.
this is **bagholder cannibalism with multisig cutlery** 🍴🩸

and retail sees this and thinks:

**"bro, wait...the people asking for money are voting themselves the money with the money they got from previous money?"**

yes, anon.

welcome to **Polkadot treasury recursion.**

where deliverables go to die,
refunds become folklore,
and accountability gets bridged to nowhere. 🌉🕳️

**proof-of-bagholder-sacrifice continues** 🩸🛐

**vote NAY.**
**touch grass.**
**protect the treasury.**
**stop feeding the invoice hydra** 🐍💸

The real issue isn’t just this proposal. It’s that Web3 Foundation has spent years tolerating useless projects and endless “ecosystem building” with little real adoption.

Anything can get funded if it’s labeled as “infrastructure” or “decentralization,” even when nobody uses it.

Meanwhile, the Treasury keeps paying for everything while W3F avoids responsibility whenever costs or failures show up.

At some point, people have to ask:
Are we building real adoption, or just funding an internal circle that survives on Treasury money?

❌ VOTE NAY: Stop the $1.5M DOT Dilution for Zero Real Value
The premise of this top-up completely falls apart under scrutiny. Before we dump another $1.57 Million USD (1.2M+ DOT) into this bounty, let’s call out the reality of who is actually using this infrastructure:

Polkadot.js Users Don't Care About Latency: The proposal brags about millisecond speed gains for Polkadot.js. Let’s be real—Polkadot.js users are not casual consumer end-users. They are developers, validators, and power users executing advanced technical tasks. They do not care about a fraction-of-a-second latency gain, and they certainly don't need a million-dollar Treasury dilution to fund it.

Commercial Wallets Have Alternatives: Top-tier apps like Nova and Talisman are highly sophisticated commercial products with access to plenty of alternative, market-driven RPC infrastructure endpoints. They do not need to be permanently handcuffed to a massive Treasury subsidy to keep operating.

**End the "Central IT Department" Illusion: A centralized, heavily subsidized IT department is completely antithetical to the core ethos of Web3.**

<ins>If we switch this bounty off, the ecosystem will not collapse.</ins> Commercial entities will route to alternative providers, power users won't notice a difference, and we will finally stop the relentless Treasury burn that is diluting the value of DOT.

**VOTE NAY. Stop the waste.**


❌ VOTE NAY – ULTRA LUXURY RPC WHILE EVERYONE GETS DILUTED  

This asks for 1,219,611 DOT (≈1.57M USD) for one year of IBP, budgeted off ~1.29 USD DOT while we trade around 1 USD. We all pay that gap through dilution and Treasury sell pressure.

The proposal itself admits the main “benefit” is lower latency and global routing – a few milliseconds faster RPC for power‑users and bots – while normal users barely notice, and major wallets/apps already have alternative RPC options. So why lock the ecosystem into an oversized, USD‑indexed “IT department” when the there are already competitive infrastructure providers?

JAM teams have effectively been working at “5 USD DOT” assumptions and carrying full price risk, while IBP shields itself with a fixed USD budget and annual top‑ups. If W3F and large delegates vote AYE on this structure, they are sending a very clear message to JAM teams: you were the ones taking real risk while others get generous risk‑free USD streams from the Treasury.

That is not alignment, it is luxury waste on the backs of everyone else. Vote NAY and insist on lean, competitive web3 native decentral infra where providers share DOT price risk instead of treating the Treasury as a perpetual reimbursement machine.



Given the current lack of a clearly communicated and updated roadmap, and the absence of meaningful public alignment or communication from core development teams, it is not possible to reasonably evaluate the long-term direction or expected impact of new funding proposals within Polkadot governance.
In this context, allocating additional treasury resources becomes speculative rather than strategic, as there is insufficient transparency regarding priorities, execution timelines, and overall ecosystem direction.
Until a coherent and publicly articulated roadmap is provided, accompanied by consistent technical and strategic communication from core contributors, I do not consider it responsible to approve further expenditures.
Therefore, as a default position under the current conditions, my vote will be NAY on all proposals.

This one, particularly, is a grift.

Before JAM succeeds, these matters are merely hindering its success.

[@Kyrie_crypto](16M5hAMWDUi3VMJKjzyce17DGGRfxunLWapGq8izAwEfVNvZ-polkadot) 
Spoiler alert: JAM will never succeed

** What A Cartel Actually Looks Like
** 
A cartel is: a closed group of producers that sets prices collectively, blocks entrants, and bills a captive buyer above market.

Check every box:

-   Closed group: 8 members. Down from 12. Membership by application and curator approval.
-   Blocks entrants: "No further onboarding of Professional members" is listed in the proposal as a cost-saving measure. Read that again. Excluding competition is sold
to the treasury as a feature.
-   Sets prices collectively: pricing is set by the IBP, not discovered by a market. No RFP. No competitive bid. No alternative quote.
-   Bills a captive buyer above market: the treasury, with no exit clause, at AWS retail rates.

**  This is the textbook definition. The label is not rhetorical. It is descriptive.
**

  The Cartel Sets The Price. There Is No Market Check.

  Hetzner AX102 — 16 cores, 128 GB RAM, 4 TB NVMe — $155/month.

  IBP node — 4 vCPU, 16 GB RAM, 4 TB NVMe — $1,365–$2,719/month.

  9–18× markup. For one-quarter the hardware.

  In a market, this gap closes. A competitor undercuts. A buyer switches.

  In a cartel, the gap persists because no competitor can enter and the buyer has no choice. That is what is happening here. The 9× markup is the cartel rent.

[@1bdD...dJxj](1bdDXZKiAdzDCTPJaKdHGbvCngN7CDuzSH1Vx2ZY1nzdJxj-polkadot) 

100%

The Polkadot RPC Bounty, which truly is open and competitive by design, has an active proposal that is 10x cheaper for 12 months.

IBP should be dropped in favour of the fair, cost effective, and transparent Polkadot RPC Bounty (https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1895)

[@OnFinality.io/Proposer](12p5BVtw21yhQ269QterUyrv81QEcP72fGdk2c2aSfnpXkxd-polkadot) Funny ChaosDAO voted against the competitive 10x cheaper one and abstained here? Wonder if the self serving cartel took already over ChaosDAO.

Can someone explain why **CoinStudio** has been receiving **$3,400** from this bounty even after the allegations were substantiated?

This is not vague FUD. CoinStudio has been shown to be a **commission-flipping validator, extracting from nominators** through conduct documented [here](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569), [here](https://medium.com/@polkadot.bad.actors/commission-flipping-and-multiple-identities-a-growing-trust-problem-in-polkadot-staking-b46742e0af2e), and confirmed by the Parity Data team [here](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/36). The operator even [confirms the behavior himself](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/29).

Bill Laboon from W3F [stated](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/11) that they were looking into it to determine the best course of action. Any progress, or are we just letting the clock run while the treasury keeps paying out?

Why did OpenGov keep cutting checks to a **proven bad actor?**

And what exactly are Parity, W3F, and the large wallets waiting for before voting **NAY?** This proposal would hand this bad actor another **$1,700 per month** to "manage the finances" of a casual **$1.5M treasury war chest**—because apparently fiduciary hygiene is optional now.

This is treasury-funded impunity.

Governance cannot preach accountability while rewarding extractive validator behavior. **Vote NAY and send this proposal to oblivion.**

**wait wait wait.**
actually...
**WAIT EVEN HARDER!**

stop the buffet line.
halt the invoice printer.
summon the receipt-sniffing raccoons 🧠💀🚨🦝

because the Lagos data center arc just dropped in my inbox.
and brother.
**IT IS CINEMA.** 🎬🔥

Dwellir told the group the Nigeria site costs **$2,600 per month**.

![IBP_DWELLIR_COST.JPG](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/Qme91T1LXQ51KTj5DMg2hdJf1Vj6ygUGWpqTbKVLwXAkzQ)

two thousand six hundred dollars.
twenty-six Benjamins with a lil' datacenter cologne 🧾🌍

and then the monthly bill appears. https://github.com/ibp-network/ChildBounties/blob/main/Polkadot%20Bounty%2050/2026.01%20-%20IBP%20Polkadot.pdf

![IBP_DWELLIR_CHECK.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQmhNz1tFxso3U3XdQch3J8DrvYMtN8jKaYyh6Z5HZHyd)

**$26,935.05.**
**LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO** 😂

bro.
that is not a markup.
that is a vertical takeoff. 🚀💸

cost: **$2.6K**
charged: **$26.9K**
spread: **$24.3K/month**
margin energy: **90%+** 🧘‍♂️💰

ninety percent.
**NINETY.**

this is not infrastructure.
this is a Lagos-themed yield farm with a rackmount costume 🖥️🌴🪠

bro really said:

> "we must protect Nigeria, the next generation of developers may emerge from there"

beautiful.
touching.
almost made me cry 🥲

then the invoice said:

**"also please route $26.9K/month through the treasury blender"** 🥹💸

my brother in decentralisation,
if the site costs **$2,600** and you invoice **$26,935**, that is not ecosystem support.
that is **proof-of-geographic-emotional-blackmail** 🌍🩸

"think of the Nigerian developers" while charging a 10x spread s insane.

that's not infra strategy.
that's UNICEF cosplay for RPC grifters 🫠

and the best part?
when asked whether to cancel the site, Gustav says:

> "unfortunate... Nigeria has one of the fastest-growing populations..."

ser.
then why the fastest-growing thing here is the **MARGIN?** 📈💀

Nigeria population growth: bullish.
Dwellir invoice growth: parabolic.
treasury IQ: still syncing 🧠⏳

this is not a public-good service.
this is **public-good arbitrage.**
this is not decentralised infrastructure.
this is **margin-fi with humanitarian seasoning.** 🍜🤡

**$2.6K cost.**
**$26.9K cheque.**

what are we paying for?

the server?
the rack?
the bandwidth?
or Gustav personally whispering "decentralisation" into the router every morning? 🗣️📡

does the Lagos node come with a rooftop pool?
is the SSD plated in Polkadot governance regret?
does the power supply run on rare Swiss accountability crystals? 🔮⚡

because otherwise...

**WHERE IS THE OTHER $24K GOING EVERY MONTH?**

into "operations"?
into "engineering"?
into "resilience"?
into the sacred multisig brunch fund? 🥐💸

or wait...
maybe I’m being unfair 🥺
maybe the other **$24K/month** is going into **Hyperliquid premium emotional support.**

because look at Dwellir’s own site: https://www.dwellir.com/networks/hyperliquid
they’re out here selling Hyperliquid orderbook APIs, WebSockets, Singapore/Tokyo low-latency edge servers, dedicated nodes, tailored load balancing, global data centers, and even **access to engineering teams.**
the whole perps-casino infra buffet.

so maybe that Lagos margin isn’t margin.
maybe it’s just cross-chain philanthropy. 🫶💸
Polkadot bagholders pay **$26.9K/month** for a **$2.6K/month** site...
and somewhere in the distance a Hyperliquid ape gets buttery-smooth orderbook updates while nuking himself on 40x leverage 📉🔥

beautiful ecosystem synergy.
**dot treasury in.**
**hyperliquid infra out.**
**accountability bridged to nowhere** 🌉🕳️

maybe this is what they meant by interoperability.
not chains talking to chains.
**bagholders funding other ecosystems’ premium support** 🤡🔌

this is not public goods.
this is **Hyperbridge premium support with polkadot seasonng** 🍜💸

and remember:
this is one site.
**ONE.**
one little Lagos line item turns into a $26.9K monthly treasury extraction machine.
annualised?
**$322.8K/year charged.**
against **$31.2K/year cost.**

that is nearly **$291.6K/year of spread** on one location.

this is not decentralisation.
this is **a data center wearing a ski mask** 🏢🔪
and somehow we are supposed to clap because it says “public good” on the invoice?

nah fam.
public good does not mean:
**"private margin, public bagholders"** 👜🩸
public good does not mean:
**"we found a $2,600 expense and taught it how to become a mortgage"** 🏠💸
public good does not mean:
**"approve the proposal or Nigeria loses its blockchain future."** 😭🌍

that is not governance.
that is emotional APY.

and retail sees this and thinks:

**"wait… Polkadot treasury is paying $26.9K/month for something that costs $2.6K?"**

yes anon.
welcome back to OpenGov.

where invoices become mythology,
margins become sacred texts,
and accountability gets rate-limited behind a multisig 📜🕳️

Dwellir should explain this.

not with vibes.
not with population charts.
not with "critical region" poetry.
not with a sad decentralisation violin 🎻🫠

with numbers.

**show the real cost stack.**
show the labor.
show the traffic.
show the SLA.
show the justification for the 10x spread.

and to the aye voters:

look at this screenshot.
look at the bill.
look at the confession.
then look at your vote.

because if you still vote aye after seeing a 90% margin on a "public-good" service,
you are not funding infrastructure.
you are funding the **Lagos Luxury Spread Program** 🌴💸

this is not stewardship.
this is not decentralisation.
this is not public goods.
this is **grift with an uptime dashboard** 📊🤡

**vote NAY.**
**audit the invoices.**
**stop feeding the invoice tapeworm.** 🪱💸

[@15Pc...jwiw](15PcJha5DEPbYaFypucCwzsvcbpYJWTe1iH8PeVyUwktjwiw-polkadot) 

What you are referring to in my message is the monthly bill for electricity, cooling and bandwidth by the DC for hosting the machines. Not taking into account the investment in hardware (and depreciation) and labor. 

$2,600/month just to keep the lights and AC on? Please. 🛑

Stop insulting our intelligence. We know exactly what datacenter hosting, power, and bandwidth cost—and it isn't this. You are treating the ecosystem treasury like a blank check and assuming nobody will check the math. We're not retarded. Break down the actual usage or drop the price.

well well well 😂

pause the rackmounts.
summon the depreciation shamans 🧠💀🧙🏻‍♀️

because [@Gustav](13u5odFdy7uFmRLpbgtYGWeFy8rFkcD3bYfad49B81C31pwL-polkadot) just activated the sacred defense of:

> "you forgot hardware and labor"

my sources tell me **the treasury already paid Dwellir an extra $30K for hardware purchases in 2023.**

**$15K — April 2023** https://github.com/ibp-network/ChildBounties/blob/main/Kusama%20Bounty%2019/2023.04%20-%20IBP%20Kusama.pdf
![DWELLIRHWPAY1.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSJQiNvsMUfo4a8nrUvqTGmwbaAcK51fsYabu5QnXCGKm)

**$15K — May 2023** https://github.com/ibp-network/ChildBounties/blob/main/Kusama%20Bounty%2019/2023.05%20-%20IBP%20Kusama.pdf
![DWELLIRHWPAY2.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmabZ4MpQ7px85BfHgqvSsNPLetBoxi5VQCbdHBLagLa6a)

that’s **$30K total** straight from the treasury printer 🖨️💸

and let’s remember the timeline here:

**2023.**
before AI datacenter hysteria.
before server vendors started charging kidney-index pricing 🫁📈

back then?
hardware was **CHEAP.**
like, hilariously cheap compared to today.

so let me get this straight:

the community paid for the machines,
paid for the hosting,
paid for the bandwidth,
paid for the cooling,
paid for the electricity,

and now also gets luxury-tier recurring invoices because somewhere a server is slowly experiencing emotions over time? 🖥️🥺

what exactly are we depreciating here?

the SSDs?
or the **moral integrity of OpenGov?** 📉🫠

so now the question becomes:

do I really need to pull out the specs and prove that **$30,000 in 2023** bought way more infrastructure than IBP’s max workload could realistically consume?

or can we stop pretending this was some hyperscale NASA-grade deployment? 🚀💀

because at this point the denial arc is getting more expensive than the servers themselves 🧾🤡

These sprawling conglomerates—much akin to the collator syndicate, which comprises three or four profoundly intertwined entities that on-chain scrutiny reveals to be but a singular identity—pose a most grievous threat to sound governance whilst mercilessly draining the exchequer.

We didn't enter this space to manufacture cartels, invite-only clubs, or protected circles that somehow float above basic accountability and competition.

Close this so-called "bounty". Now.

If the events bounty had to be shut down, IBP should have been euthanized three times over for good measure. Yet here we are still debating another top-up for a ridiculous 1.22 million DOT.

Architected and managed by StakePlus — whose main online presence has quietly vanished (both @StakePlusCrypto on X and stake.plus are currently gone) — and Amforc front and center, the incentive structure remains overpayment in exchange for compliance and silence in the face of misappropriation. Even after the much-touted 58% haircut (fewer members, no more parachain support, reduced redundancy), the ask is still enormous for services that should be commoditized and competitive in any genuinely open ecosystem.

The curators of this bounty have zero real agency. Zero. They oversee a 3-of-5 multisig while the program quietly turns independent providers into de facto dependents.

Remember the promise we all showed up for: build open systems. Transparent. Competitive. Accountable. Permissionless where it matters and where it's possible. If we’re no longer serious about that, then step aside and let the free market handle price discovery — something centralized bounties have repeatedly proven they cannot do without turning contributors into silent participants in their own capture.

We are watching this industry lose altitude for one brutally simple reason: we keep breaking the foundational promises that brought talent, capital, and conviction here in the first place.

Close. This. Shit.

I oppose Referendum #1891, the IBP Bounty Top-Up.

The IBP may be presented as a reduced-cost continuation, but the core concerns remain: concentration of treasury access, weak accountability, and unclear value delivery. Reducing the budget does not fix a structure that appears to benefit a recurring circle of insiders.

There are also serious concerns around prior funding, delivery, and accountability involving participants such as **Tom / Stake Plus** and **Tugy / Amforc**. In Tom’s case, the amount of treasury funding involved has reportedly approached the $1 million range, while concerns remain around whether expected deliverables were met. Tugy’s expansion into additional treasury-funded areas, including legal bounties and stress testing, raises further concerns about overreach and concentration of influence.  Grift much?

We should also be mindful of who approved and enabled this funding. Tom and Tugy have both publicly claimed strong links within Parity and W3F, and both are now closely aligned within ChaosDAO. While ChaosDAO abstained on this bounty, it has voted against other proposals that, in my view, offered clearer ecosystem value. That deserves scrutiny.

This raises serious governance questions. Are we seeing independent community judgment, or the inner workings of a small network of aligned actors? The roles and influence of figures such as Alex Bird, Erin Grasmick, and Will Pankiewicz should be examined where relevant as their names are associated with this proposal's history.  Especially where they intersect with curator roles, Parity/W3F relationships, ChaosDAO influence, and treasury-funded infrastructure.

Treasury funds should be allocated through transparent, competitive, and accountable processes — not through structures that appear closed, self-reinforcing, or politically protected.  We need not look too far as there is a better model available for our vote now.

Until these concerns are properly investigated, the community should reject Referendum #1891.  I dare suggest closing the bounty altogether.


"What a total cartel joke."

The Coordinator? Also the Auditor.

Oversight & Quality? Done by the providers themselves.

The Accountant? Also a provider.

Literal foxes guarding the henhouse. Every real-world governance model is better than this circus. It’s not a service; it's a coordinated plunder of funds. 🛑

If this passes, it’s the final nail in the Polkadot coffin. 🪦

This is the point of no return. It’s no longer about building an ecosystem; it’s just a small cartel plundering the remaining treasury assets before the ship sinks. If this goes through, I’m out.

I have personally interacted extensively with IBP and its members through the work we do at Paseo.

From my experience, they are a highly professional, responsive, and reliable group of contributors that consistently delivers high-quality service. Their involvement has been instrumental in ensuring smooth testnet operations, and they have successfully addressed a significant number of operational requests coming both from the testnet itself and from projects building on top of it.

Their contribution has been valuable not only from a technical perspective, but also in maintaining efficient coordination and support across the ecosystem.

[@Alejandro_R0GUE](15VPagCVayS6XvT5RogPYop3BJTJzwqR2mCGR1kVn3w58ygg-polkadot) to the rescue.

If IBP is truly as professional, responsive, and indispensable as you claim, **why don’t you fund them out of the $392,500 USDC you just received from the Polkadot treasury in your own proposal?** (ref: https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1885)

Would you actually pay for their services from the Paseo budget, or are you perfectly comfortable letting the broader community keep footing the bill — despite the well-documented issues of **monopolization, undelivered promises by some of its members, overreach, exorbitant margins even after the treasury already covers the hardware, shifting Kusama-related costs onto Polkadot, and the general lack of real accountability?**

It’s certainly convenient for you.

Now, a few direct questions, since you’ve positioned yourself as someone who works closely with them:

In your recent Paseo funding proposal, **you allocated $0 for IBP services:**

![HN1243_DG63_HP456.PNG](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmebV3sFJgrb3mPCoc3yU3GjXAPgHNPJ2jYKEhGwiPQSzk)

This was at a time when IBP had already run out of budget. So we’d like to know: who exactly promised you that IBP would continue providing these services for free? Where did that guarantee come from? And if it came from IBP management — specifically the same individuals (Tom from StakePlus and Tugay Turkoglu from Amforc) referenced in the earlier concerns — did you even make any effort to verify that they could actually deliver on it?

You almost certainly knew they were already out of funds. So isn't **listing $0 for IBP in your proposal simply a way to quietly force the Polkadot community to subsidize services that your own budget didn’t want to cover?**

Because from where I’m sitting, **that’s not coordination. That’s externalizing costs while expecting the rest of us to keep the lights on for a program that has repeatedly failed basic fiduciary standards.**

[@12R7...PYJ5](12R7ossNQsSNhhhmwAtsfYk9V85NJhZTNmsQbvFYM5YLPYJ5-polkadot)   Exactly. Kusama’s market cap is sitting at a measly $81M because the treasury there has already been completely bled dry. Now the cartel is just migrating the parasite to Polkadot to siphon off what's left. 🪱🔴

[@12R7...PYJ5](12R7ossNQsSNhhhmwAtsfYk9V85NJhZTNmsQbvFYM5YLPYJ5-polkadot) This is just a coordinated locust swarm. They ran Kusama straight into the dirt, looted its treasury until the market cap tanked to $81M, and now they’re bringing the exact same playbook to Polkadot. Stop the funding before they kill this chain too. 💸🕳️

Ah, the sacred OpenGov social contract: You support my proposal, I’ll help you loot the treasury. 💸
Alejandro gets his payout, IBP gets their 1.22M DOT, and the community gets the bill. Stop the insider circle-jerk. Shut this down.

The Free Ride Is Over. 🛑

From this moment on, any proposal that involves, connects to, or financially benefits any of these corrupt entities—including the ex-Parity insider clan—will be met with maximum hostility and scrutinized to absolute oblivion.
Consider this a final warning to validators: if you vote AYE to fund these toxic actors or their cronies, expect to see your nominations completely vaporized. The decentralized community is waking up, taking back control, and dialing up the scrutiny to a million to save this ecosystem from total destruction. Align with the token holders or get purged. ⚖️🔥

Ok. But where were you guys like 5 years ago when DOT still had a chance to survive? None of you voted back then... Later Giotto was calling the shots with his bs proposals. None of you showed up. Only now???

**Summary**:
This proposal seeks to secure continued funding for the services the IBP provides to the ecosystem for **12 months starting March 2026**. The proposal includes changes as a result of our [discussion round](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/posts/443) and comes with various cost savings, reducing the costs by **58.68%**.

Key changes that were implemented:
- Removing parachain support
- Reducing member count from 12 to 8
- Adjusting node redundancy
- Reducing curator payments by 50% and removed Building Fund
- Listing Fellowship runners separately
- No more bulletin validators.

The full proposal can be found [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uazl5tSMnT5GrhzFxiNgjOHTGkq8u8stjXSvB9OQc5g)

**About the IBP:**
The Infrastructure Builders Program (IBP) is a collective of independent infrastructure service providers that supports the Polkadot ecosystem with RPC and ‘IT department’ services. Established in 2022, IBP is a globally distributed and resilient ecosystem service provider, thanks to its unique design.

Infrastructure Builders Program asks for money to work for 12 months starting March 2026.  
It cuts costs by 58.68%.  
Changes include: no parachain support, fewer members (12 to 8), less backups, half pay for curators, no extra building fund, list Fellowship runners separately, and no bulletin validators.  
IBP gives RPC and IT help to Polkadot since 2022.

amount

beneficiary

Deciding

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

treasurer

IBP Bounty Top-Up

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

big_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.