Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

wish_for_change

The Polkadot Community Foundation has proposed a plan to launch a "Polkadot" branded payment card for the Polkadot ecosystem. This non-custodial payment card will be issued globally and work anywhere Visa is accepted. It will be compatible with Apple Pay and Google Pay, and users will only pay a small transaction fee (under 1%). The card will be powered by smart contracts and allow users to hold and pay with USDC. The Polkadot Community Foundation has chosen Baanx as the card provider and issuer, and the card program will be managed by CL, a brand of Baanx. The card will be a debit card using the Visa network and will carry no other branding. There will be no cost to the Polkadot Treasury for the origination and setup of this card program. The card program aims to provide an alternative to traditional banking and increase the usability of the Polkadot ecosystem for payments and DeFi.

Deciding

Polkadot Community Foundation: Polkadot Payment Card

Preparing

- 200,000 DOT was taken due to problems with a voting proposal from Parallel Finance.
- The team was surprised by Parallel Finance's lack of knowledge about Polkadot's staking.
- Parallel Finance announced they will not give all cDot back to users and will provide limited swap options.
- They also changed their CEO and are shutting down their main service by August 1, 2025.
- There are calls for the community to keep evidence of Parallel Finance's actions, as investigations are ongoing.
- The team warns about possible theft of user funds and encourages legal reporting of the issue.
- They believe the tech-fellows misunderstood the whitelist proposal which allowed this situation to happen.

TimedOut

Parallel Finance Round Two; Is Polkadot Tech-fellows over-involved?

- Centrifuge is planning to create a new version called Centrifuge V3.
- This new version will be based on an EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) and work across multiple blockchains.
- The goal is to grow the Real World Asset (RWA) market and improve the way assets and investors connect in DeFi (Decentralized Finance).
- If approved, Centrifuge V3 will change from using Polkadot to this new EVM-based system.
- The Polkadot Community Foundation is holding back funds until they are sure Centrifuge will continue to exist on its platform.
- Future choices about where Centrifuge operates will depend on the results of discussions and proposals related to this new version.

Based on a current discussion around Centrifuge&rsquo;s future development, its community has opened CP141: to initiate the development of Centrifuge V3, a multi-chain, EVM-based protocol
<a href="https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/cp141-initiate-the-development-of-centrifuge-v3-a-multi-chain-evm-based-protocol/6734/11">https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/cp141-initiate-the-development-of-centrifuge-v3-a-multi-chain-evm-based-protocol/6734/11</a>
Abstract: This proposal seeks governance approval to initiate the development of Centrifuge V3, an EVM-based protocol, to drive the next phase of growth for the RWA market. Built as a multi-chain system, this next-generation protocol will introduce features such as chain abstraction, modularity for diverse assets and investors, and enhanced composability with DeFi. The protocol will also migrate governance and CFG token support to an EVM chain, aligning with the ecosystem where the majority of Centrifuge&rsquo;s activity already resides. This initiative positions Centrifuge to lead the rapidly growing RWA space and meet the evolving needs of institutions and DeFi participants.
Based on the info provided, if this proposal is accepted, the technology of Centrifuge will move from a Polkadot parachain to an EVM-based protocol. Polkadot is currently adding EVM support to Asset Hub, and Centrifuge can choose to deploy its protocol on Asset Hub once this is live. From the discussion, it is not clear whether Centrifuge will deploy its protocol on Polkadot Asset Hub or not: This wish for change proposal aims to condition the transfer of funds from PCF to Centrifuge related instruments subject to the requirement that the Centrifuge protocol is migrated to Polkadot Asset Hub, with special attention to past approved proposals on relay chain governance.
<a href="https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/1122">https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/1122</a>
WFC: The Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) shall not transfer funds to Centrifuge related instruments that was previously approved under <a href="https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/1122">https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/1122</a> until the continuation of the existence of Centrifuge in the Polkadot ecosystem is confirmed after the finalisation of <a href="https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/cp141-initiate-the-development-of-centrifuge-v3-a-multi-chain-evm-based-protocol/6734/11">https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/cp141-initiate-the-development-of-centrifuge-v3-a-multi-chain-evm-based-protocol/6734/11</a> and subsequent discussions / proposals in Centrifuge governance.
&nbsp;
The system.remarkWithEvent has been hashed due to being too long, you can verify it by checking the preimage&nbsp;
0xfb2f0a1ed92ce82767ce65e8294296c39ad5e7ecbbd3c130ccde890b5700c32d Or you can see the plain text on SubSquare:&nbsp;
<a href="https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1441">https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1441</a>
system.remarkWithEvent: 
Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) shall not transfer funds to Centrifuge related instruments that was previously approved under <a href="https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/1122">https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/referendum/1122</a> until the continuation of the existence of Centrifuge in the Polkadot ecosystem is confirmed after the finalisation of <a href="https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/cp141-initiate-the-development-of-centrifuge-v3-a-multi-chain-evm-based-protocol/6734/11">https://gov.centrifuge.io/t/cp141-initiate-the-development-of-centrifuge-v3-a-multi-chain-evm-based-protocol/6734/11</a> and subsequent discussions / proposals in Centrifuge governance.
&nbsp;

Polkadot Community Foundation: Conditions on transferring funds to Centrifuge-related instruments

- The proposal outlines how the Marketing Bounty (MB) can work with service providers (SPs) for marketing projects related to Polkadot.
- The Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) will act as the legal partner for these contracts.
- The MB helps SPs who need a legal address or payments in regular money (fiat).
- A special account called a "legal fund" will be created to manage costs for contracts and payments to SPs.
- Standard contracts will be made to save time and money, but custom contracts can be created if needed.
- The PCF will set up an account to manage payments and will work with the MB on contract processes.
- All agreements must follow the law in the Cayman Islands and Polkadot's rules and goals.

Executed

Polkadot Community Foundation: Allow the Marketing Bounty to Execute Formal Contracts through the Polkadot Community Foundation

This is an idea to diversify the treasury by investing in Bitcoin, along with DOT and stable coins. The person suggests setting aside 1 million DOT to buy Bitcoin slowly. They think Bitcoin is important because it's the top digital asset and is becoming more accepted in traditional finance. This plan would help the treasury's value grow and could be used if needed. They ask others to help decide which version of Bitcoin to use and how to make the plan work.

![](https://i.ibb.co/g6MNvCF/Screenshot-2025-01-17-at-4-55-16-PM.png)  
This is a chart with which we are all familiar. DOT vs BTC. To be honest, this chart is likely similar for the vast majority of alts on a longterm timeline.

Much like we have already done to stabilize our treasury by DCAing into stable coins such as USDC and USDT, I propose that we set aside 1 million DOT to engage in the same diversification strategy by slowly accumulating Bitcoin.

While we are all DOT bulls at heart, many of us came to crypto through Bitcoin, and it has demonstrated that it is the apex predator of all digital assets. Over the last year, we have witnessed its newfound legitimacy among TradFi through the creation of the ETFs, and we are on the cusp of numerous states here in the U.S. (if not the whole country itself, as well as other nationstates) beginning to accumulate their own "Bitcoin Strategic Reserves." It would be wise for us as a community to do the same.

Over the coming years, this will provide a solid foundation for our treasury's value, and if we were ever in dire need due to running low on DOT or stables, we could tap into this value by converting it back into one of those two options. The main objective, however, would be to accumulate with the goal of not selling in an effort to drive the overall treasury value higher.

I defer to the Hydration team when it comes to which wrapped version of the asset we should accumulate, as this would likely be dependent upon a number of factors such as the depth of liquidity in the Omnipool. I would also defer to someone else to create and implement the actual design of the technical proposal that would allow this to happen in a trustless way should the community agree to the wisdom of adding Bitcoin to our overall treasury reserves.

Grateful for your consideration in this matter,

Your resident Polkadot Bitcoiner, Phunky

Wish for Change | Polkadot Treasury Bitcoin Strategic Reserve

### Summary
This proposal aims to increase Polkadot's visibility by requiring teams funded by the Polkadot Treasury to display the Polkadot logo on their websites, products, and social media. 

- Teams must show the logo as long as their project is active.
- They should specify where and how they will display the logo in their funding proposals.
- Teams can choose from phrases like "Funded by Polkadot" or "Powered by Polkadot."
- The Polkadot Brand Hub provides design guidelines.
- This rule applies to future funding requests but encourages past recipients to follow it.
- Exceptions can be made for cases where displaying the logo is not possible.

The goal is to boost Polkadot's brand awareness and show its support for funded projects.

Wish For Change | Polkadot Branding Guideline

### Quadratic Funding in Polkadot

- **Purpose**: Introduce quadratic funding (QF) as an alternative to the current treasury spending model in the Polkadot ecosystem.
- **How it Works**:
  - Projects share a fixed public fund pool.
  - Community votes, calculated by the weighted square root of donations, determine the final distribution.
- **Benefits**:
  - Reduces the influence of large token holders.
  - Encourages broader community support.
- **Challenges**:
  - Potential for Sybil attacks (fake accounts).
  - Incentivizing donations when a public fund pool exists.
- **Implementation**:
  - Funding rounds with predetermined budgets.
  - Projects apply and are reviewed by curators.
  - Communities donate assets, and funds are distributed via child bounties.
- **Reputation System**:
  - Addresses have voting weights based on on-chain and off-chain activities.
- **Audit**:
  - Transparent fund distribution and voting weight information.
- **FAQ**:
  - QF is an alternative to, not a replacement for, OpenGov treasury funding.
  - Projects can apply for both QF and OpenGov funding.
  - Whales benefit from QF by improving treasury spending decisions.

Introduce quadratic funding to the polkadot treasury spending

**Proposal: 5% Minimum Validator Commission Fee for Polkadot**

- **Purpose**: To ensure sustainability for smaller validators and maintain decentralization.
- **Motivation**: 
  - Increased validator set and reduced inflation have lowered rewards.
  - Rising hardware costs and larger database sizes make operations more expensive.
  - Validator earnings have dropped by 56% in the past year.
- **Proposal**: Set a minimum commission fee of 5% for validators.
- **Benefits**:
  - Encourages smaller operators to participate, enhancing decentralization.
  - Helps validators cover rising operational costs.
  - Aligns Polkadot with Kusama's practice, ensuring economic sustainability.
  - Improves network security and performance with better hardware.

Set a 5% Minimum Validator Commission Fee for Polkadot

Polkadot OpenGov has set standards for bounties to ensure they meet minimum requirements before receiving funding. These standards cover objectives, funding, curators, recipients, and transparency.

1. **Bounty Objectives**: Bounties must have clear goals that the community can judge their success by. Funds can only be used for the objectives they were requested for.

2. **Funding**: Bounties can request funding once per quarter. Requests must include a budget breakdown, timeframe, and transparency reports on past activities. They must be discussed for at least 2 weeks before a vote.

3. **Curators**: Curators must have a verified identity and payment terms must be outlined. They cannot sign payments for their own work, except for compensation. They must declare conflicts of interest and report any issues.

4. **Recipients**: Recipients must have a verified identity and cannot claim compensation for work they've already been paid for.

5. **Transparency**: Bounties must provide materials like a public communication channel, an overview page with objectives and contact information, a spending policy, a table of child bounties, monthly progress summaries, and quarterly financial statements.

The document also discusses the importance of having clear objectives, the ability to change them, and the challenges of setting success metrics. It emphasizes the need for both summary and detailed transparency, and provides examples of how bounties can meet these standards with simplicity and efficiency.

This document lays out standards which shall apply to all bounties funded through Polkadot OpenGov. The basic intention is to ensure that minimum standards are upheld before a budget is granted. It defines how these executive bodies should handle budgeting, transparency, and compliance.

## 1\. Bounty Objectives

1.  Bounties shall have a clearly defined list of objectives by which their success can be judged by the community.
2.  Funds may only spent within the boundaries of the objectives for which the funds were requested.

## 2\. Funding

1.  Bounties may request funding at a maximum of one time per quarter.
2.  Funding requests must include
    1.  Budget breakdown: The budget has to give an honest picture of the intended spending and be broken down into positions. Positions should be explained in sufficient detail.
    2.  Timeframe: The timeframe should give clarity to OpenGov when it can expect the next funding request.
    3.  Transparency reports that cover past activities up to the time of the request.
3.  A funding request has to be put up for discussion in any of the established governance platforms or the Polkadot forum for at least 2 weeks before it is put to a vote.

## 3\. Curators

1.  All curators must have a verified on-chain identity.
2.  Payment terms of curators must be outlined in the funding request. If curators shall receive payment, including for prior work, it has to be defined in the payment terms.
3.  Curators may not sign payments for work that they have executed, except curator compensation.
4.  Curators must not claim compensation for work that they already have been compensated for otherwise.
5.  Curators have to publicly declare and document any conflicts of interest that come up during their duty.
6.  Curators have to publicly report any misbehavior or other issues that conflict with the effective and efficient operation of the bounty.

## 4\. Recipients

1.  All recipients must have a verified on-chain identity.
2.  Recipients must not claim compensation for work that they already have been compensated for otherwise.

## 5\. Transparency

Bounties are required to provide the following materials for transparency:

1.  Official public communication channel where curators are regularly available and the public can participate
2.  Regularly updated official overview page
    1.  Objectives
    2.  Main contact point
    3.  Link to the public communication channel
    4.  A list of all current curators
    5.  Links to all progress summaries and all other transparency materials listed below
    6.  Links to relevant documentation
    7.  Link to current child bounties h. Guidance for executors on how to participate in the bounty
3.  Spending Policy, including how curators are compensated
4.  A table of child bounties that contains: status, name, description, amount, beneficiary username, beneficiary address, links to evidence. The table is available in an open format (XLSX, CSV, or similar)
5.  Monthly progress summary posted to the bounty page, signed off by at least one curator
    1.  Current status of projects
    2.  Current bounty balance
    3.  Current plans d. Notable changes to objectives, curation team, operations, etc.
6.  Quarterly financial statement
    1.  Balance
    2.  Income and Expenses
    3.  Summary of curator payments
    4.  Summary of payments by recipient
    5.  available in an open format (XLSX, CSV or similar)

# Appendix

These are additional questions we have received and considerations we have discussed. They are not included in the on-chain proposal (to keep the proposal minimal) and are intended to help you interpret the intention of the proposal.

## Bounty Objectives

### Would a strategy be considered the defined objectives?

A strategy is much bigger. Objectives are the first part of a strategy. So yes, a proper strategy contains objectives. However, a list of objectives doesn't yet make a strategy.

### Shouldn't a bounty be able to change its objectives?

Yes. Bounties need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. However, if a bounty promises to do work to achieve a certain goal it should not take the granted money and do something different with it. If it wants to change what the money is designated for, it should have to request a change.

Likewise, it is easy for a bounty to change the objectives for future funding, because it is submitting a funding request anyways. In the context of requesting new funding, it can also communicate changed objectives.

### Should there be success metrics?

In general it would be very helpful to measure against hard metrics. The problem is that it is really hard to arrive at reasonable metrics and very often people come up with bad metrics just so that they can provide KPIs. We have chosen to not include a requirement for metrics yet, because the ecosystem as a whole is not yet mature enough to have agreed on the right metrics. A good first step is to start finding the metrics that make sense before prescribing that metrics have to be used.

### Should a bounty end date be defined?

In the past, OpenGov has shown to just close bounties when they stopped performing. We don't think this has to be explicitely defined.

## Funding

### Will bounties be denied funding if they don't follow the rules outlined in this document?

It is still up to OpenGov, but the idea is that OpenGov shall question bounties that do not provide these things. We suggest OpenGov denies funding requests if proper scoping and transparency criteria are not fulfilled.

### Why should a funding request contain a budget breakdown with specific details? Aren't the details already provided with the objectives?

The objectives long-term and generic in nature. The quarterly budget is focused on specific projects. It might touch only some of the objectives or with different priorities. It is more specific. The idea is to communicate specific plans for how the money is used, not some general ambitions.

## Transparency

### Summary and Details

There are 2 parts to transparency: summary and details

-   **For the casual observer, getting a quick overview summary is important.** For them, the answer cannot be that they can "look it up in a table, drive folder, meeting notes, or on-chain". Casual observers are the majority of the participants. For the casual observer, short summaries are important. Auditors need summaries to save time.
-   **For the transparency nerd, detail is important.** For them (and auditors), being able to verify all the claims given in summaries is crucial. Bonus points if it is structured data to allow automation to take place.

When we talk about transparency, both aspects are needed: summary and details.

### But transparency creates extra work

Yes, dealing with other peoples money requires making it transparent what you did with the money.

### Simple and short is fine

You don't need a dedicated website. Updating the description on the bounty pages in governance explorers like Subsquare/Polkassembly is very much fine. It even helps casual observers find your information quickly.

The same is true for summaries, reports, etc. Keep them short and simple and save everyone time.

### Overview Page

The overview page can be a the Subsquare/Polkassembly page, a dedicated website, Notion page or similar. See examples below:

Events Bounty

-   Linktree: [https://linktr.ee/dotevents\_](https://linktr.ee/dotevents_)
-   Website: [https://dotevents.xyz/](https://dotevents.xyz/)

UX Bounty:

-   Notion Page: [https://braille-wtf.notion.site/UX-Bounty-Homepage-WIP-167a1782242e477bbb9f7a066ef447dd](https://braille-wtf.notion.site/UX-Bounty-Homepage-WIP-167a1782242e477bbb9f7a066ef447dd)

### Quarterly Financial Statements

Financial statements should provide detailed explanations and metrics of bounty operations. See examples below:

Events Bounty

-   [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y8DuYnXpNuGJYALjJSUJ83ogJypWoOrL2df1\_6XTfYc/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.tv09ho3qoge](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y8DuYnXpNuGJYALjJSUJ83ogJypWoOrL2df1_6XTfYc/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.tv09ho3qoge)

PAL

-   [https://github.com/polkadot-assurance-legion/pal-docs/blob/main/community-reports/pal-24h1.md](https://github.com/polkadot-assurance-legion/pal-docs/blob/main/community-reports/pal-24h1.md)

### Monthly summaries

Summaries can be short bullet point summaries that gives the general idea of progress for public oversight, they dont have to be as detailed as quarterly reports.

Polkadot OpenGov sets standards for bounties. Bounties must have clear objectives, request funding quarterly, and provide transparency reports. Curators and recipients must have verified on-chain identities. Transparency materials include an overview page, spending policy, child bounties table, monthly progress summary, and quarterly financial statement. The proposal does not prescribe success metrics, end dates, or a dedicated website. Transparency requires both summary and detail, and summaries can be short bullet points.

Bounty Compliance Standards 1.0

### Acurast Proposal Summary

- **Proposal**: Acurast seeks approval for inclusion in Polkadot's marketing narratives.
- **Current Status**: Acurast Canary testnet is active on Kusama with 17,000+ phones and 84M+ transactions.
- **Future Plans**: Acurast plans to launch its mainnet on Polkadot soon.
- **Recent Proposals**: Acurast is following other recent proposals like Moonbeam, Hydration, Novasama, and Centrifuge.
- **Requirement**: Specific approval is needed for continued inclusion in marketing narratives via OpenGov.
- **Links**: More info at [Acurast Website](https://acurast.com) and [Acurast Docs](https://docs.acurast.com/).

WHO: Acurast
WHAT: Place an on-chain remark for inclusion in Polkadot Bounty #33 marketing narratives
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified

Inclusion of Acurast in Marketing Narratives

To Be Timed Out

Polkadot wants to make all addresses the same across their system. Right now, there are many different address formats, which can be confusing. They want to use one format, starting with the number '1', for all chains that connect to Polkadot. This will make it easier for people to recognize their accounts and know where their money is going. They will also use special address prefixes to help people see where their money is going when they copy an address. This change will make things simpler and safer for everyone using Polkadot.

## Summary

This proposal aims to simplify and unify the address format across the Polkadot ecosystem to improve user experience and reduce user confusion. Currently, over 150 registered entries use different SS58 address prefixes, creating fragmentation and complicating the user experience.

This proposal is a result of multiple discussions which were consolidated in the polkadot forum. This post provides more detailed explanation and reasoning behind the proposed changes:

[https://forum.polkadot.network/t/unifying-polkadot-ecosystem-address-format/10042](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/unifying-polkadot-ecosystem-address-format/10042)

🚧 This initiative falls under the UX Bounty scope and the necessary resources will be covered by its budget. You can find all relevant materials [here](https://www.notion.so/braille-wtf/UXB-1-UX-Issue-1-Unified-Address-Format-9e7c414ae769471c9016c9d8463a4d49).

## Proposed Changes

-   Adopt a unified SS58 address format for all compatible Polkadot parachains:
    
    -   Use Prefix:0 (addresses starting with '1') for all compatible chains that wish to connect to Polkadot ecosystem
    -   This allows users to easily recognize their accounts across different chains

Implement readable address prefixes roughly based on [EIP-3770](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3770) to help prevent users from sending assets to the wrong chain

-   This allows users to easily see the intended destination chain when copying address

       ![readable-prefix](https://i.ibb.co/NYTBQKv/7eb16e0314f51c593e14306d7e2fec67b6142122.png)

## Benefits

-   Simplifies user experience across the ecosystem
-   Reduces confusion caused by multiple address formats
-   Minimizes the risk of users sending assets to incorrect chains
-   Streamlines development processes for builders in the ecosystem

## Implementation

As a part of the UX bounty, we will do the following to ease implementation of this proposal:

-   Create detailed guides for developers to ensure a seamless transition
-   Create specification for the prefix decoding
-   Develop explanatory documents and tools for users and developers to be able to provide support during the transition period (i.e. address conversion tool, prefix decoder)
-   Work with wallet providers, dApps, and exchanges to help them update their interfaces

## Notes

-   The wish for change serves as guidance; chains and dApps can choose their own prefixes, however this wish for change proposal aims to show, that the users of the Polkadot ecosystem wish to simplify the UX within the ecosystem and it is advisable to follow this change.

## Impact

This change will significantly enhance the user experience within the Polkadot ecosystem, making it more accessible and user-friendly for both new and existing users. It will also reduce the complexity for developers building on the platform.

[ Wish for change ] Unifying Polkadot Ecosystem Address Format

- The proposal suggests setting a maximum amount of $DOT coins, like the number Pi (3.14), to limit inflation.
- Inflation would be based on the difference between the current supply and the maximum supply, with a 10% growth each year.
- This approach aims to provide a clear path for inflation over the next 5-10 years and avoid yearly changes.
- The proposal is seen as a complete plan that builds trust with investors because it prevents the supply from doubling every seven years.
- The author suggests changing Pi to Euler's number (about 2.72) for a smaller maximum supply, aligning with community preferences.
- Voting for this plan means agreeing with the inflation reduction idea from Gavin Wood, the founder of Polkadot.
- If the plan passes, it will not cause immediate changes but show the community's desires for the future.

Inflation decreasing - Gavin Wood vision

This proposal suggests introducing a KYC/DID system for HA, Ambassadors, and Curators to discourage bad actors and encourage active participation in growing the ecosystem. The idea is to use Kilt DID for security until a Polkadot citizenship system is fully operational.

This wish for change proposal is very simple, introduce a KYC/DID system for:

-   HA
-   Ambassadors of all ranks
-   Curators of all current and future bounties.

OpenGov is evolving and clashes with many disputes, by introducing this system we could discourage bad actors and favor people who really want to change things and actively work to grow our ecosystem.

Not being a Dev I leave them the suggestions of how a possible integration could work.

#Edited 🔽

_**For clarity**, I used the term 'KYC' informally (not in the traditional sense). To ensure a robust security solution, we should leverage the existing tools available through Kilt DID. This would be sufficient to maintain a high level of security until a potential Polkadot citizenship system will be fully operational._

Inroduce KYC/DID for HA and Bounty Curators

- The proposal suggests making the polkadot.com website's source code open source.
- This would promote transparency, security, and collaboration in the project.
- Developers could contribute improvements and find security issues.
- It would align with Polkadot's decentralized principles.
- The community can vote on this proposal to decide its future.
- Open-source code helps ensure the website is secure and well-maintained.
- This move is in line with the principles of blockchain technology.
- The decision will be made based on community feedback and votes.

WHO: Polkadot community
WHAT: Gauge opinion on making polkadot.com website source code open-source
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified

[Wish For Change] Referendum #1157 - Make polkadot.com code, open source

This is a ReferendumV2 post. It can only be edited by the proposer of the post .

Polkadot's Economics Parameters: Proposal 4 (5% constant total inflation)

Test

### Wish for Change (WFC) Referendum

- **Purpose**: To gather token holders' opinions on updating Polkadot's economic parameters.
- **Key Changes**:
  - Fixed treasury inflow.
  - No adjustment of staking rewards based on staking rates.
  - Potential reduction in overall inflation.
- **Community Discussions**: Several forums and livestreams have discussed these changes.
- **Rules**:
  - Only executed WFCs can be candidates.
  - The WFC with more AYE votes (weighted) is preferred.
  - WFCs should ideally run in parallel.
- **Non-Binding**: The referendum doesn't force changes; it aggregates voter opinions.
- **Outcome**: A root referendum will implement the winning WFC's logic.
- **Current Proposal**: 8% total inflation with 15% to the Treasury, leading to gradually decreasing inflation.

Polkadot proposes a Wish for Change (WFC) referendum to gather token holders' sentiment on implementing a fixed treasury inflow, removing staking rewards adjustment, and potentially reducing inflation. The referendum is not binding but aims to aggregate voters' opinions. This proposal suggests setting an 8% total inflation on a fixed total issuance, with 15% diverted to the Treasury, leading to gradually decreasing inflation over time. The timeframe and resources are not specified.

Polkadot's Economics Parameters: Proposal 3 (8% total inflation in the first year, then gradually decreasing)

### Summary of the Wish for Change (WFC) Referendum

- **Purpose**: The WFC referendum aims to gather token holders' opinions on proposed updates to Polkadot's economic parameters.
- **Key Changes**:
  - Implement a fixed treasury inflow.
  - Remove adjustments to staking rewards based on staking rates.
  - Potentially reduce overall inflation.
- **Community Discussions**: There have been extensive discussions on forums and livestreams about these changes.
- **Rules**:
  - Only executed WFCs can be considered candidates.
  - The WFC with more AYE votes (weighted by conviction) is preferred.
  - WFCs should ideally run in parallel.
- **Non-Binding**: The WFC referendum is not binding; it aggregates voter opinions through OpenGov.
- **Future Steps**: A root referendum will be proposed after the WFCs to implement the winning WFC's logic.
- **Proposed Parameters**:
  - Max staker reward: 85%
  - Max inflation: 8%
  - Min inflation: 6.8%
  - Remark: 8% constant total inflation with 15% to Treasury.

Rejected

Polkadot proposes a Wish for Change (WFC) referendum to gather token holders' opinions on proposed updates to economic parameters. The changes include a fixed treasury inflow, removal of staking reward adjustments, and potentially reducing overall inflation. The WFC cannot be binding, and the winning proposal will be implemented in a root referendum. The proposed parameters for this WFC are a maximum staker reward of 85%, maximum inflation of 8%, and minimum inflation of 6.8%, with 15% going to the treasury.

Polkadot's Economics Parameters: Proposal 2 (8% constant total inflation)

### Summary of the Wish for Change (WFC) Referendum

- **Purpose**: The WFC referendum aims to gather community sentiment on proposed updates to Polkadot's economic parameters.
- **Key Changes**: 
  - Implement a fixed treasury inflow.
  - Remove adjustments to staking rewards based on staking rates.
  - Potentially reduce overall inflation.
- **Community Discussions**: Extensive discussions have taken place on forums and livestreams.
- **Rules**: 
  - Only executed WFCs can be candidates.
  - The WFC with more AYE votes (weighted) is preferred.
  - WFCs should ideally run in parallel.
- **Non-Binding**: The referendum does not force chain updates but aggregates voter opinion.
- **Outcome**: The goal is to implement the winning WFC's logic in a root referendum.
- **Current Proposal**: Voting AYE supports keeping total inflation at 10% with a constant 15% Treasury inflow.

WHO: Polkadot community token holders
WHAT: Vote on implementing a fixed treasury inflow and potentially reducing overall inflation
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: None specified, referendum is non-binding and serves as a method to aggregate community opinion. Winning proposal will be used as a basis for a root referendum.

Polkadot's Economics Parameters: Proposal 1 (10% constant total inflation)

- This proposal suggests including Centrifuge in marketing narratives funded by Polkadot Bounty #33.
- Centrifuge is a platform that can be found at [centrifuge.io](https://centrifuge.io/).
- The proposal follows recent referendums:
  - Referendum 801 (Moonbeam)
  - Referendum 834 (DED)
  - Referendum 854 (Hydration)
  - Referendum 862 (Novasama Technology)
  - Referendum 1020 (Bifrost)
- These referendums show that continued inclusion in marketing requires approval through OpenGov.

WHO: The proposer
WHAT: To include Centrifuge in marketing narratives funded by Polkadot Bounty #33
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified

Inclusion of Centrifuge in Marketing Narratives

### Summary of the Referendum

- The referendum proposes increasing the recommended core count for reference hardware from 4 to 8.
- This change would start in January 2025.
- The Polkadot binary is a multithreaded program that benefits from more hardware cores.
- Currently, the minimum hardware requirement is 4 cores with SMT disabled.
- With async backing enabled, parachains can produce larger blocks, increasing execution time.
- Validators need to check relay chain blocks and parachain blocks, which requires more CPU cores.
- Raising the core count to 8 is intended to prepare for future network growth.
- The Polkadot binary will continue to run with a warning if the hardware does not meet the new requirements.

Polkadot proposes to increase the recommended core count for reference hardware from 4 to 8 for validators starting January 2025, to prepare for future usage increase. No change in behavior for machines not meeting requirements.

Increase recommended core count for validators reference hardware from 4 to 8

The Polkadot Halving is a proposal to reduce the inflation rate of DOT by 50%. Here are the key points:

- The goal is to see if the Polkadot community wants to lower the DOT inflation.
- It aims to create excitement and awareness about the "Polkadot Halving."
- This idea is inspired by the Bitcoin Halving, which is well-known and happens every four years.
- If agreed upon, future proposals for more halving will be made after each Bitcoin Halving.
- The exact date for the Polkadot Halving will be decided by the community within three months.
- The proposal focuses on building community involvement and long-term planning. 
- Everyone is encouraged to share their thoughts on this proposal.

WHO: The Polkadot community.

WHAT: Reduce the inflation rate of DOT by 50% and drive the "Polkadot Halving" narrative across all marketing channels.

PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified.

LONG-TERM VISION: Establish a recurring following each BTC halving where the community votes on whether to halve the supply again.

The Polkadot Halving

Bifrost is a leading Liquid Staking Technology (LST) protocol on Polkadot and Kusama. They have proposed to include their products in Polkadot Bounty #33 - Marketing Bounty. Their products include:

1. Bifrost: The Liquid Staking Standard for Any Chain, secured by Polkadot.
2. SLP: Liquid Staking Protocol using Polkadot SDK and decentralized validators-collators through Bifrost OpenGov.
3. Omni LS: The omnichain Liquid Staking Hub, based on SLPx the extension Liquid Staking pallet using XCM calls.
4. Loop Stake: The leverage LST pallet for the Polkadot ecosystem.

Bifrost supports other PoS networks like Astar, Moonbeam/Moonriver, Manta, and aims to make Polkadot shine on Filecoin and Ethereum. They have partnered with many teams and dapps for cross-marketing initiatives. Their main dapps are Bifrost dapp and Omni LS.

Bifrost's products highlight Polkadot SDK, interoperability, and synergies between teams inside the Polkadot ecosystem. They help release locked liquidity, participate in governance, and secure the relay-chains. This proposal follows recent referendums that require specific approval through OpenGov for continued guaranteed inclusion in marketing narratives.

This proposal, if approved, will place the following on-chain remark with event:

`Inclusion of Bifrost's products in marketing narratives funded by Polkadot Bounty #33 - Marketing Bounty, namely: 1. Bifrost: The Liquid Staking Standard for Any Chain. Secured by Polkadot 2. SLP: Liquid Staking Protocol leveraging Polkadot SDK and decentralized validators-collators through Bifrost OpenGov. 3. Omni LS: The omnichain Liquid Staking Hub, based on SLPx the extension Liquid Staking pallet leveraging XCM calls. 4. Loop Stake: The leverage LST pallet for the Polkadot ecosystem.`

You can learn more about Bifrost here: [https://bifrost.io](https://bifrost.io)

Bifrost is the leading LST protocol on both Polkadot and Kusama with vDOT and vKSM. vDOT use cases:

-   vDOT retaining voting rights in OpenGov. Only LST having the feature.
-   vDOT as collateral for Interlay's iBTC vaults
-   vDOT as collateral for Pendulum's Spacewalk vaults
-   vDOT as collateral in Interlay's lending/borrowing market
-   Yield DCA on Hydration
-   LPing on Moonbeam (Stellaswap, Beamswap), Astar (Arthswap), Hydration (omnipool) and Bifrost
-   Leverage staking (Loop Stake) on Bifrost with no liquidation

We also support other PoS networks within the ecosystem: Astar, Moonbeam/Moonriver, Manta, and are trying to make Polkadot shine on Filecoin and Ethereum.

We have already partnered with many teams (pioneer with Airlyft for Substrate support), parachain teams (Zeitgeist, MangataX, Moonbeam, Astar, Interlay, Hydration…) and dapps (The Great Escape, Exiled Racers, DEXs…) for cross-marketing initiatives. Bifrost's main dapps are:

-   Bifrost dapp: [app.bifrost.io](https://app.bifrost.io)
-   Omni LS: [omni.ls](https://omni.ls)

Bifrost's products are designed to highlight Polkadot SDK, interoperability, synergies between teams inside the Polkadot ecosystem, releasing locked liquidity, participating in governance and… securing the relay-chains !

We are making this proposal after these recent proposals:

[Referendum 1010 (Energy Web)](1010)

[Referendum 801 (Moonbeam)](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/801)

[Referendum 834 (DED)](Referendum%20834%20$DED$)

[Referendum 854 (Hydration)](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/854)

[Referendum 862 (Novasama)](862)

These referendums indicate that continued guaranteed inclusion in marketing narratives require specific approval through OpenGov.

WHO: Bifrost
WHAT: Inclusion of Bifrost's products in marketing narratives funded by Polkadot Bounty #33 - Marketing Bounty
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified

Inclusion of Bifrost Products & Solutions in Marketing Narratives

root

whitelisted_caller

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

big_spender

Referenda Wish For Change

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

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.

[2] Origin: WishForChange