Threshold
Hi,
Further to my comment on your rejected proposal, I'm happy to see your revised your proposal, but as long as you don't share part of your commissions from the raised funds, I can't vote Aye for this
The fact that you intend to invest the raised funds on the Polkadot project is obvious since your fund is already focused on Polkadot and you claim funds from the treasury, therefore investing in the Polkadot project isn't something unique nor special.
However, sharing your commission (like you would do with any other finder fee agent who helped you to raise funds) is the expected thing to do. According to you, without those $1m you have zero chances of raising $100m, therefore, it doesn't make sense that the treasury gets nothing. It takes all the risks (assuming you fail to raise $100m) but you take all the rewards assuming you manage to do it (Again, I'm talking from commissions fees perspective since your funds injection to Polkadot projects is obvious to me)
I wish you good luck
Hi Lucy Friday team,
Thanks for the detailed feedback! I respect your NAY vote, but still hope to turn the result of this Ref around, as more people are coming in on the AYE side. I believe our initiative will be a clear net positive for the ecosystem. I would like to respond to your points one by one:
It is true that the cost of the event sponsorship would be borne by the treasury in its entirety, but this is similar to the treasury paying for Decoded or Token49, regardless of how successful these events end up being. Nonetheless, there will be plenty of risk left for us: a) we don't manage to raise as much as planned; or b) throughout the investment period, the entire Polkadot ecosystem is in a downtrend, resulting in flat or negative performance of our fund. In those cases we would have had 2-3 years of work on this fund, wile collecting zero dollar in carry. We will also have plenty of other (non-marketing) costs for this new fund, such as legal and compliance and general overhead. Keep in mind that this proposal includes zero salary for us, only sponsorship of the events at cost. Now, we are confident that we will be able to raise this fund, and to deliver great investment returns, that's why we are embarking on this this journey. But to say that the treasury is taking all the risk, and we only collect the potential upside, would be inaccurate.
The treasury has also been "endorsing" an official marketing manager or an official events agency, and for that matter, even an official football club. There is nothing unusual about that. Also, other fund managers have benefitted from the treasury or W3F multiple times in the past. As a side note, other ecosystems (Solana and Cardano for example) also have treasury funded asset managers.
I think our events are pretty cheap, when comparing them to Decoded, Token49 or Consensus, and will certainly do more in terms bringing new capital into Polkadot
This is a point that many people seem to misunderstand. Since we don't get any salary out of this, we are heavily incentivised to be as successful in the fundraising for Polkadot as we can, as this is the only way for us to make money. Having these incentives properly aligned is much more useful than some fussy KPIs that nobody can enforce.
We covered this in the "Commitment to Transparency" section. Our fund will only be accountable to its LPs. It will be a commercially driven fund, but that's also what benefits portfolio companies most. Subsidies to projects that have no clear path forward generally don't work. I don't see a conflict of interest here.
You are right that we could go to the events bounty, and probably will if this proposal fails. The reason why we prefer to do it this way, is because we get significant discounts from event organisers for entering into a long term partnership (around 50%). As you will be aware, the events bounty has a tendency to overpay for events, as proposers are not incentivised to bargain with event organisers.
Kind regards
Edited
Hi @Polkassembly Governance! Thanks for your feedback and the suggestion to split this into two separate proposals. First of all, I appreciate your support in principle on our initiative of bringing more outside capital into the Polkadot ecosystem. I understand your logic of trying to split this into two separate proposals; however, there are two reasons why we still hope that you will still vote in favour of this proposal in its current form:
Bulk discounts: We are looking to enter into a long term partnership with a global family office conference organiser, for which we will be able to get a significant discount compared to doing only a few events at a time. We have had these negotiations already, and doing 2x10 conferences as you suggest would unfortunately come at an overall higher cost to the treasury than 1x20 events.
Timing: The first conference of the series we are planning to sponsor is one of the largest gatherings of wealthy investors in Germany (details here). It already will take place in early September, and we would have to sign the sponsorship contract before end of July to still have Polkadot be part of this. Failing this Ref now, and resubmitting 2x10 conferences would therefore already make us miss this first important event.
Understand your logic that you want to see a few events before deciding on whether to continue funding, but keep in mind that we already have and extensive track record in raising capital (Fund 1 is fully raised and closed) and that we have successfully organised several of these summits in the past. (Details of the latest one here).
Hope to still win your vote on this referenda!
Kind regards,
Hello from Polkadotters.
With the updates in this revised proposal, such as greater inclusivity, which would help ecosystem teams fund their projects by presenting at family office conferences, this proposal makes good sense. AYE on this one!