Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

wish_for_change

Inflation is too high, which stops new people from joining. A solution is to have a fixed supply and use a certain percentage of what's left as inflation. The total maximum supply could be 2.1 billion, which is related to Bitcoin. If we have 1.4 billion tokens now, that means we have 700 million left to use as rewards. A good number for inflation could be 10% of what's left. So, in the first year, the staking rewards distributed will be 70 million (10% of what's left). In the next year, only 63 million will be distributed because only 630 million will be left. This way, we never run out of tokens, and the amount distributed always gets less. This might make Polkadot more appealing to people.

Rejected

WHO: Proposal author

WHAT: Proposing a fixed supply and using a certain percentage of leftover tokens as inflation for staking rewards in Polkadot

PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Not specified

Reducing inflation - VOTE NAY

- **Current Spending Periods**: Currently set at 24 days, these periods cause delays in funding.
- **Referendum Process**: It takes up to 28 days for a referendum to pass.
- **Confirmation Time**: An additional 7 days are needed for confirmation.
- **Cumulative Delay**: If confirmation ends on the first day of a new spending period, another 24 days are required, totaling up to 2 months.
- **Arbitrary Duration**: The 24-day period is considered arbitrary and problematic.
- **Proposal for Change**: Suggest reducing the spending period to the shortest possible time, ideally one day or one week if technically feasible.
- **Purpose of Change**: The shorter the period, the less uncertainty and quicker the funding process.

Executed

Proposal: **Reduce spending period to shortest possible time, ideally 1 day, or max 1 week, to avoid 2-month wait for funds.** Current 24-day period causes unnecessary uncertainty. Timeframe/resources not specified.

Reducing duration of spending periods

- The Polkadot EVM Collective is a group that works on everything related to EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) on Polkadot.
- It has four main goals: standardizing EVM changes, making development transparent, creating a roadmap, and providing expert advice.
- Members are ranked as Junior or Senior, and their roles define their responsibilities, like maintaining projects or editing documents.
- The collective uses a flat ranking system, meaning ranks only affect voting power, not other benefits.
- Members must stay active by participating in regular checks, or they lose voting rights and roles.
- The collective plans to have its own salary and treasury system, but funding will be decided by Polkadot referendums.
- Small collectives are preferred over one big group because they are faster, clearer, and easier to manage.

WHO: Polkadot EVM Collective
WHAT: On-chain technical collective for EVM standardization, development and maintenance, creating an inclusive roadmap, and providing expert opinions
PRICE/TIMEFRAME/RESOURCES: Salary and sub-treasury system for future use with values set to 0, any increase or funding only done through Polkadot referendums. Inactivity check utilized to ensure active members, with ranks and roles defining voting power and responsibilities. Seeding members subject to final vote of a root referendum. Small collectives deemed more effective for carrying out tasks. Flat ranking system with two ranks and separate concept of roles to define responsibilities.

Approve the Polkadot EVM Collective

Delegations are a good idea for some decisions, but not for very important ones. Some tracks, like Root, Wish for Change, and Treasurer, are too important to trust others with. This is because they can change the rules a lot or spend all the money. It's like how you can trust someone to sign a paper for you, but not for big life events like marriage or divorce. We should be careful with who we trust for these important decisions to keep the system safe. This idea is not just for one group, but for all important choices.

Proposal: Do not allow delegations on vital tracks (root, wish for change, treasurer) to protect system integrity. Delegation is good but risky for extreme importance. No specific target. No price/timeframe/resources mentioned.

Restrict delegations on root and treasurer tracks

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