Establishing an Insurance Bounty to increase fiscal efficiency of Polkadot treasury

Big Spender
7mos ago
19 Comments
Rejected
  • Content
  • AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
1MDOT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation7d
Attempts
2
Tally
47.2%Aye
50.0%Threshold
52.8%Nay
Aye
83.47MDOT
Nay
93.34MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support(1.72%)
24.4MDOT
Issuance
1.42BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
  • Call
  • Metadata
  • Timeline8
  • Votes Bubble
  • Statistics
Comments

Hello,

...while the move towards stablecoin transactions is promising, it is not yet a viable standalone solution for managing the financial needs of all projects due to the limited availability of these funds.

Then let's increase the availability of stable coin assets in the treasury.

It underscores the continued necessity for the Treasury Insurance Fund to manage the volatility associated with DOT and to ensure projects receive adequate funding regardless of market conditions.

No, it doesn't.

Additionally, it is important to consider the timing and strategic implications of transitioning significant treasury reserves into stablecoins, particularly at the onset of a market upturn.

Then please start an initiative for the community to consult on how to effectively manage asset diversity.

Nay.

Regards,
kukabi | Helikon

Reply
Up

there is the new spend() extrinsic to pay out in USDT. If proposers don't want uncertainty, this is what they should do. This bounty would just add complexity to a process that can be handled much simpler

Edited

Reply
Up 1

Hello from Polkadotters.
In general, this sounds like a smart idea. But, there are much better ways how to insure proporsers. Use USDT or request more DOT with a promise to refund whatever USD value is in excess. Those are quite cheaper solutions, than paying 8,5k USD/month to directors, curators, treasures, and signers.

Reply
Up