referendum_canceller

Executed

Canceling referendum 1195

Rejected

Canceling referendum 1186

TimedOut

Cancel 917

Cancel 923

Referendum 912 posted on the wrong track

- The #774 proposal was removed due to unexpected negative reactions from the Polkadot voting community.
- The proposal aimed to build a supportive user community, but it had the opposite effect.
- The team initially believed the proposal would be well-received and supported.
- The project's focus remains on providing tools for content creators to produce streaming services.
- The team is now reflecting on the project's nature and how to improve it.
- They are open to proposals that support online communities, anonymity, and AI-social interactions.
- To learn more or contribute ideas, join the Kinera Discord channels.
- The team thanks everyone for their understanding and support.

The #774 proposal has been removed due to negative community feedback. The goal was to build a user community, but the opposite happened. The team will reflect on the project and seek proposals to support online communities, anonymity, and AI-social interactions. Join Kinera Discord channels for more information.

 Cancelling treasury proposal #774

Cancel root ref #693

### Summary of Referendum Proposal

1. **Purpose**: The referendum aims to let the community vote on whether it's acceptable to resubmit a recently failed proposal.
2. **Close Vote**: The proposal lost by a small margin, nearly 50/50.
3. **Democratic Concerns**: The loss was mainly due to Delegated Voting (DV), which some argue is less democratic than direct voting.
4. **Improvements**: The new proposal has significant improvements over the previous one.
5. **Debate Separation**: It's suggested to split the debate into two referendums: one on the practice (form) and one on the proposal's merits (substance).
6. **Separate Voting**: This approach allows voters to separately decide on the practice and the proposal, keeping the debates distinct.
7. **Effectiveness**: This method is considered more effective and democratic.

WHO: The community

WHAT: Vote on whether it is acceptable to resubmit a proposal that recently failed, split into two referendums - one about the form and one about the substance

PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified.

Cancel Chainanalysis ref

- The DOTisDED team initially supported a referendum but later changed their funding strategy.
- They decided to base their funding on community sentiment and moved to a DED Bounty Fund.
- This change led to Referendum #556.
- The team believes that DED cannot succeed with just a technical budget and poorly received proposals.
- They canceled the original referendum to allow the DED Bounty Fund to proceed.
- A DED bounty fund is seen as the best way to ensure success while maintaining fair distribution.
- The goal is to use a $10 million fund to create a valuable asset, rather than aiming for a high-value token with limited resources.

WHO: The DOTisDED team

WHAT: Pivot from a proposal by proposal approach to a DED Bounty Fund, cancel Referendum #556, and create a $10m fund to aim for >$1bn value asset.

PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified.

Cancelling DED Tech Proposal, and Deferring to DED Bounty Fund

- A referendum is being held to address issues on Kusama.
- Three technical proposals are being canceled due to configuration errors.
- Referendum 416 included a problematic fee manager for XCM execution.
- Referendum 428 aimed to update minimum balances but was recommended for rejection.
- Referendum 443 tried to fix the existential deposit but combined calls from Referendum 428.
- These actions are proactive measures until proper fixes are introduced.

No clear proposal is made in this text. It explains the reasons for canceling three technical proposals on Kusama due to configuration errors and recommends downvoting them. No specific price, timeframe, or resources are mentioned.

Cancelling Referenda 416, 428, and 443 in a batch

Cancel Ref 341 - Dolpha.com seeking 150,000 DOT 

- A referendum is being proposed to stop the enactment of Referendum 265.
- Referendum 265 aims to get 999,999 DOT to support a meme coin called $PINK.
- The goal is to promote "less tech and more pink."
- The proposer chose to "cancel" instead of "kill" to avoid slashing the deposit.
- There is a small chance that Referendum 265 might not be a scam or joke.
- If it's not a scam, the proposer shouldn't be punished for an unpopular idea.
- The community has the chance to decide whether to prevent Referendum 265.

WHO: Will, Paradox, Ecosystem Janitor
WHAT: Canceling Referendum 265 to prevent its enactment under unscrupulous conditions without punishing the proposer's deposit.
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified.

Cancel Referendum 265 - Funding 999,999 DOT for meme coin in the name of Polkadot Marketing.

Cancel Referendum 241 (runtime upgrade) due to XCM issue

- This referendum cancels Referendum 211, which proposed an upgrade to Polkadot's relay chain runtime.
- Referendum 211 has an issue with its upgrade call, making it impossible to execute even if it passes.
- The problem is that the weight is set too high, so it will never pass.
- A new runtime upgrade is being prepared to replace Referendum 211.
- The issue was discovered when a similar upgrade, Referendum 297 on Kusama, failed to execute.
- This proposal only cancels Referendum 211, not slashing any deposits.

WHO: Polkadot community.

WHAT: Cancel Referendum 211 proposing to upgrade Polkadot relay chain runtime to v1000000 due to an issue with the upgrade call.

PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified.

Cancel Referendum 211 (runtime upgrade) due to bad call 

Encointer proposes to cover their expenses for July and August 2023 from the KSM treasury for CHF 213,000. They also plan to submit a proposal to the DOT treasury for funding from September onwards. They oppose retroactive funding but suggest considering their founder's pre-investment.

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

big_spender

Referenda Referendum Canceller

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.

[20] Origin: ReferendumCanceller