Polkadot Watchdogs Governance Monthly Incentive Referendum #1 - VOTE NAY

Big Spender
62 Comments
Rejected
  • Content
  • AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation2d
Attempts
0
Tally
5.4%Aye
50.0%Threshold
94.6%Nay
Aye
996.53KDOT
Nay
17.6MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support(0.03%)
361.04KDOT
Issuance
1.36BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
  • Call
  • Metadata
  • Timeline4
  • Votes Bubble
  • Statistics
    New
Comments

This is starting to be ridiculous... One man show aka Open Giotto....
We really gonna let this unethical whale control whole Polkadot eco ? Someone who was never been seen in last 3 years comes with his bags and tell us whats right or wrong :)

Screenshot_1.png
When he says "I wanna tip him" he means to take out from the trasury and tip ofc he does not mean he will spend his own bags to provide the tip.

Slashing his account now seems as realistic option.

Edited

Reply
Up

@jonas @giottodf

the assumption that among many factors, one reason for low participation in opengov is that many token holders either don’t know how to vote or have their DOTs in CEXs that prevent voting. Now, the question is how we can engage these people. The goal is to incentivize them to join, and then encourage them to stay.

Large accounts don't vote because of apathy, opportunity cost (better things to do) and importantly legal jeopardy - a subject people rarely seem to discuss or even have basic awareness of.

I have mentioned this many times before... and have discussed with W3F lawyers.

I also mentioned recently to Giotto who seems unconcerned about the potential issues that lie down the road due to the Polkadot/Kusama treasuries existing as unincorporated associations - leaving holders, large voters and proposers vulnerable in the absence of a legal wrapper.

It seems fairly inevitable we will see DAO lawsuits proliferate in 2024/5.

Edited

Reply
Up

Dear All,

This proposal, as other proposal at 700k dot for Ded, and some others, show a current direction of governance than I'm really against.

We need to think to reduce the treasury size, to reduce the greedy incentive of them.

This type of proposal reduce the current quality of proposal and with aye will motivate greedy/scam people to came to extract as much as possible value of it.

We can reduce treasury size, to show a limit, than money aren't infinite, to motivate people to aye better quality of proposal due to the limite quantity of treasury.

And to stop to lose time of this type of proposal.
We have something else to do on the ecosystem/life.

Best Regards,

No Risk No Fun

Reply
Up

We have voted NAY.

DOT holders are already incentivized to participate in governance to ensure the long-term health and value of the network.

We doubt the effectiveness of 431 and see the cost as too high for an unproven/unresearched method.

The proposal is an experiment and better suited for Kusama. Also, we think that 5'000 DOT (ca. $34'000) commission for the technical execution is far too much.

Reply
Up

if you change it to burn 100k dot, I might vote aye(you can even increase the amount). Treasury needs to burn dot anyways, and then you don't have to pay anyone 5%.

Reply
Up