There are two separate points I would like to clarify regarding the System Parachain Collator Bounty.

**1. Bulletin funding**

Referendum #1870 states that the funded set was increased from 30 to 38 by adding 8 funded Bulletin invulnerables. However, Referendum #1943 again describes the 8 Bulletin positions as “8 additional assignments”, while also stating that the proposal does not increase the number of funded assignments beyond the existing model.

Looking at the child bounties, I cannot currently find evidence that the Bulletin collators received those payments under #1870. Could you please clarify whether those payments were actually made and, if so, where they can be verified?


**2. Who is receiving funding from the bounty?**

Separately, I think the community should have a clear and publicly verifiable list of the collators currently receiving funding from this bounty. This is particularly relevant because concerns have previously been raised about some operators receiving treasury funding, including **cases involving commission flipping and/or operating multiple identities**. Some of the operators discussed in this context include:

- Mile🌍 - [commision flipping ](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/10 )and [running other identity](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/52)
- 🐟YellowFin Tuna🐟 - [commision flipping](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/10) and [running other identity](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/42)
- Coinstudio - [commision flipping](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/10)
- 🕴TUXEDO🕴 - c[ommision flipping](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/10)
- Openbitlab - [running other identity](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/50)
- BESTVALIDATOR | ZURICH - [running mutiple identities](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/validators-running-multiple-identities-and-flipping-commissions-in-same-day/16569/51)


I am not suggesting that previous allegations automatically disqualify anyone from receiving funding. However, given that this is treasury-funded infrastructure, I think it is reasonable for the community to be able to verify exactly who is being funded.


**3. Remaining DOT in the bounty**

It also appears that there is still approximately 12,000 DOT remaining in the existing bounty. Since #1943 is now requesting 96,775 USDT for the next funding period, what will happen to the remaining DOT? Will the remaining DOT be returned to the Treasury before the new USDT funding is provided, or will it remain in the bounty?

It would be helpful to clarify this as well, particularly given the move from DOT-denominated to USDT-denominated funding.


Looking at these two top-up proposals together, I think there is a broader question worth discussing about the collator bounty programme.

The concern is not simply about the cost of the programme, but also about how the funded slots are distributed.

Looking at the corresponding collator selection referenda:

• Polkadot: 30 funded slots across the five System Chains, with 22 unique operators. 8 operators hold 2 slots each, accounting for 16/30 slots (53.3%). Across the three Tier-1 chains alone, 7 operators hold 14/24 slots (58.3%).

• Kusama: 28 funded slots across the four System Chains, with 21 unique operators. 7 operators hold 2 slots each, accounting for 14/28 slots (50%). Across the three Tier-1 chains, 6 operators hold 12/24 slots (50%).

So this is not just a case of a few operators occasionally appearing twice. A relatively small group is repeatedly selected across multiple System Chains on both networks.

I understand the reasoning behind favouring operators with an established track record. Reliability obviously matters for critical infrastructure.

But this also creates a potential self-reinforcing cycle: existing operators get slots -> build more history and multi-chain experience -> become stronger candidates for future slots -> get more slots.

I think the community should discuss whether the current selection process provides enough room for new operators, and whether some limit per operator or another mechanism could improve operator diversity without compromising reliability.

The question is not whether the current operators are reliable. The question is whether the selection model can remain open and competitive over time.


[@12Ta...7hBo](12TagFiNXLXpj5H3vUYW3dZRBpG2t4HX9R8Dj4ccP3oR7hBo-polkadot) 

What I find difficult to understand is why operators facing serious, documented concerns about their conduct continue to be entrusted with running critical ecosystem infrastructure, while receiving treasury funding.

[@12Ta...7hBo](12TagFiNXLXpj5H3vUYW3dZRBpG2t4HX9R8Dj4ccP3oR7hBo-polkadot) 

W3F would be happy to see proposals from other potential collator operators.

W3F is in favor of the changes seen here and is voting Aye. They provide a more realistic operating path for the future for collators.

NAY. System collators matter, but this top-up still lacks clear answers on Bulletin payments under #1870, a public list of who is funded, residual DOT in the bounty, and slot concentration / operators with documented conduct concerns. Prefer NAY until curators publish that and return with a cleaner version.


## KEBARAH | GOVERNANCE & ARCHITECTURAL RISK AUDIT
### TARGET: POLKADOT OPENGOV REFERENDUM #1943 (SYSTEM COLLATOR BOUNTY TOP-UP)
### TRACK: MEDIUM SPENDER ORIGIN | REQUESTED MASS: 96,775 USDT

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & ARCHITECTURAL SCOPE
Referendum #1943 requests 96,775 USDT to maintain and expand the community-invulnerable collator set across Polkadot System Chains. Core system block production and parachain finality are foundational to network stability. This audit evaluates the proposal’s operational cost curves, infrastructure distribution, and ledger continuity to provide curators and voters with an actionable risk-mitigation baseline.

2. SYSTEMIC RISK ANALYSIS & ARCHITECTURAL HARDENING

[OPERATIONAL RISK] Geographic & Operator Resilience Distribution
On-chain mapping indicates that 30 funded system collator slots are maintained across 22 unique entity profiles, with 8 infrastructure providers hosting multiple system assignments. While these providers represent proven, high-uptime operators, concentrating over 50% of Tier-1 system slots across a localized operator group introduces single-point-of-failure risks regarding regional cloud outages or upstream network disruption. 
- Mitigation Recommendation: Gradually incentivize operator diversification across independent bare-metal providers to insulate System Chains against regional infrastructure shocks.

[ADMINISTRATIVE RISK] Multi-Cycle Ledger Synchronization & Accounting Continuity
Historical ledger analysis notes that Referendum #1870 previously authorized funding for Bulletin network invulnerable nodes. Referendum #1943 incorporates the ongoing maintenance for this 8-node allocation. The public proposal text lacks a explicit ledger reconciliation accounting for unabsorbed capital from the prior allocation cycle.
- Mitigation Recommendation: Publish a brief, standardized balance reconciliation attached to the child bounty ledger to ensure total public transparency and prevent external audit inquiries.

[EFFICIENCY RISK] Automation Integration & Curator Focus Optimization
Following the successful $8,500 treasury investment into custom block-monitoring automation scripts, the curation workflow has achieved high operational efficiency. Aligning administrative stipends with automated tracking allows the curation team to shift focus toward long-term RFC-0007 benchmark integration.
- Mitigation Recommendation: Formally integrate automated telemetry metrics into automated payout scripts, reducing routine administrative overhead and strengthening overall curator oversight.

[FINANCIAL RISK] Fiscal Cost-Curve Reconciliation
Adjusting standard collator stipends ($300 to $250/month) optimizes base operational costs. Integrating 8 Bulletin nodes at $500/month shifts total monthly system overhead by +$2,500/month (+26.6%). Because Bulletin bare-metal host costs ($575/month) exceed the $500/month payout, operators rely on external subsidization.
- Mitigation Recommendation: Standardize host compensation models to prevent operational margin deficits for complex nodes like Bulletin.

3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approval of Referendum #1943 ensures uninterrupted system collator operations. Implementing the recommended ledger reconciliations and infrastructure distribution guardrails will harden the program against public scrutiny while ensuring long-term fiscal efficiency.

# Polkadot System Parachain Collator Bounty 2nd Top-up

Dear community,

This proposal requests a second top-up for Polkadot system parachain collators covering seven months, from July 2026 through January 2027.

The total request is **96,775 USDT**.

Compared with [Referendum 1870](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1870), the main changes are:

- **The funded set increases from 30 to 38 community invulnerable collator assignments, with 8 additional assignments for Bulletin.**
- **Standard collator compensation is reduced from $300 to $250 per month.**
- **Bulletin collators receive $500 per month because of their higher infrastructure and operational requirements.**
- **Curator compensation is fixed at $250 per curator per month, and coordinator compensation is set at $1,000 per month.**
- **Local infrastructure costs $575 per month, including the Bulletin instance.**
- **Staking rewards and payments to permissionless collators remain excluded.**

The July portion covers work already provided during the gap between the previous allocation and the expected approval of this top-up. This top-up request is needed earlier than expected because the lower DOT price reduced the value of the previous allocation and shortened the programme’s runway. Requesting the funding directly in USDT avoids the same DOT price risk for this period.

The separate Kusama collator top-up is not included in this request.

Check the full details of the proposal [here](https://gist.github.com/paradox-tt/991323fb061b947d44d192f4088db5f1)
And an addendum to the proposal above [here](https://gist.github.com/paradox-tt/fdf873fcfe8929f317b2f14cf2e37848)

Regards,

System Parachain Collator Bounty Curator Team

# Polkadot System Parachain Collator Bounty 2nd Top-up

**What it is:** A plan to give more money to the people who help run Polkadot's system parachains (special computers that keep the network working).

**How much money:** 96,775 USDT (a type of digital money).

**What time it covers:** July 2026 to January 2027 (7 months).

**What is new compared to last time:**
- More helpers are paid: 38 instead of 30, plus 8 more for Bulletin.
- Normal collators now get $250 a month instead of $300.
- Bulletin collators get $500 a month because their job costs more.
- Curators get $250 each a month. The coordinator gets $1,000 a month.
- Local infrastructure costs $575 a month.

**Why now:** The price of DOT went down, so the old money ran out faster. Asking in USDT avoids that problem.

**Not included:** Kusama collators (a different network) are not part of this request.

Polkadot System Collator Bounty 2nd Top-up - 2026

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

technical_maintenance

prosperity_emergency

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

big_spender

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.