We will be voting NAY on retroactive referenda of these characteristics, specifically of high value. To us, it is a better way to outline a plan of action to follow what deliveries were fulfilled and what deliveries were not fulfilled as opposed as this high value retroactive approach which leaves the specifics of the work done with the listed projects as an exercise to the reader and the inclusion of an honor system for reported work which will be abused by other teams if this became the norm. 
For those two reasons we believe that this is not a "golden standard for retroactive referenda" as it was mentioned on AAG. So we would prefer that well known teams such as these one as well as newcomers take the non-retroactive route. This idea will be heavily enforced on our vote starting on cohort 4's term as described on our DV cohort 4 application: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-voices-cohort-4-saxemberg/11868

Hey [@Saxemberg Governance](/user/11fx8xKPNd4zVSBxkpN8qhhaGEmNJvPgKqwhDATZQXs7dkM), appreciate the feedback! We understand the concerns around high-value retroactive proposals and the importance of oversight, accountability, and clear deliverables. That said, we strongly believe that in cases like this, a retroactive compensation model is not only justified but also the fairest approach for both contributors and the ecosystem. Here’s why we structured this proposal this way:

- Governance facilitation, OpenGov strategy, treasury guidance, this isn’t code you can verify in a repo, but it directly shaped key decisions in the ecosystem. Pre-funding this type of work would be even harder to justify because governance outcomes aren’t predictable, pre-scoped tasks.
- While some of our work might not have easily quantifiable outcomes, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t real, necessary, valuable or involved the "inclusion of an honor system". Our work is documented across referenda, governance discussions and ecosystem initiatives to name a few. It may not be a single final deliverable or product, but they have direct effects on funding efficiency, decision-making, and long-term sustainability.
- We believe that Retroactive = more accountability, not less. We took on the risk first, delivered the work, and are only now requesting compensation. The community isn’t paying for promises, it’s paying for results.

We respect your stance, but the blanket rejection of high-value retroactive proposals does not take into account the particular nature of these deliverables. What matters is what work was done, whether it had an impact, and whether the compensation is justified. That’s what this referendum does.

Of course, we also hear the concerns around setting a timeframe for retroactive requests and acknowledge that rather than having an arbitrary window setting a clear standard (e.g., 3-6 months) could help streamline future discussions. If that becomes a widely accepted guideline, we’ll take it into account moving forward.

**JUST**’s contributions remain critical in the areas of ecosystem-wide coordination, governance operations, and OpenGov support. Currently, there are not a lot of teams that can provide the high standards of professionalism, expertise, and availability needed to address and resolve these types of issues round-the-clock in this decentralised community. 

And so, there needs to be an established process for acknowledging and compensating teams like **JUST** in the long run. In the interim, the team will still need to have the option to access retroactive funding for its undertakings, because their work often goes well beyond the scope of the average treasury proposal with pre-determined milestones.


Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **first** vote on this proposal is **AYE**.

The **Medium Spender** track requires **50% quorum and simple majority of non-abstain voters** according to our voting policy. This proposal has received **six aye and zero nay** votes from **ten members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Several voters expressed their opinions on a proposal concerning two individuals known for their contributions to the community. While some cast affirmative votes, highlighting the value and support these individuals provided, others chose to abstain, citing concerns about the vagueness of the proposed scope of work and the implications of retroactive funding. Despite differing views, many acknowledged the genuine commitment and expertise of the individuals in question, emphasizing the importance of maintaining community standards and recognizing valuable contributions.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmRkzMx2F8ZFn9gPLzfi6ihmjhTaRh5tNj9bt9s8pgeMAR).

Kind regards, Permanence DAO

We, Otar and Raul of JUST Ventures GmbH, are submitting a second retroactive funding proposal to the Polkadot Treasury, following the approval of our first request covering 01.12.2022 – 31.03.2024. This new proposal seeks funding for our contributions from 01.04.2024 – 31.12.2024.

Over this period, our work has included supporting and executing runtime upgrades, facilitating OpenGov implementation, guiding treasury proposals, providing technical assistance, managing governance discussions, supervising bounties, and engaging in key ecosystem initiatives. We have also been involved in projects like the Polkadot Ecosystem Map and the Polkadot Community Foundation advisory process among others.

The requested funding will allow us to compensate for the work done and continue our work within the Polkadot ecosystem, focusing on governance, technical support, and community initiatives. By maintaining a retroactive funding model, we ensure that contributions are compensated based on actual work completed rather than estimated upfront. To further simplify financial planning, minimise volatility, and align with community standards, this time around, we are requesting compensation in Stablecoins.

Beyond financial reimbursement, the approval of this proposal also signals the community’s intent for us to continue our work under these same retroactive terms.

We have generated a hash of the document associated with this proposal for verifiability. Anyone can confirm that the document has not been altered by downloading it as a PDF from Google Docs and computing its hash. If the resulting hash matches the value:  
  
0x93aa396d605cb910d3448ae64cee1df47de699f46689b5b5cb9ea6158ab362cc  
  
the document is verified as authentic.  
  
Discussion Post:  [https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2823](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2823)  
  
Proposal: [HERE.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I15Vru9Q5bH7TFhWtEzvOS9Uz08D8WeFMH7dnQ0vYsM/edit?usp=sharing)

- Otar and Raul from JUST Ventures GmbH are asking for more money from the Polkadot Treasury for their work planned from April to December 2024.
- They have already received money for their previous work from December 2022 to March 2024.
- Their tasks include helping with updates, community projects, and providing technical support.
- They want to get paid in Stablecoins to make things easier and safer.
- They have a document that anyone can check to make sure their proposal is real.
- This request shows that the community thinks their work is important and wants them to keep going.

AssetSpendApproved

Paid

PaymentFailed

medium_spender

We, Otar and Raul of JUST Ventures GmbH, are submitting a second retroactive funding proposal to the Polkadot Treasury, following the approval of our first request covering 01.12.2022 &ndash; 31.03.2024. This new proposal seeks funding for our contributions from 01.04.2024 &ndash; 31.12.2024.
Over this period, our work has included supporting and executing runtime upgrades, facilitating OpenGov implementation, guiding treasury proposals, providing technical assistance, managing governance discussions, supervising bounties, and engaging in key ecosystem initiatives. We have also been involved in projects like the Polkadot Ecosystem Map and the Polkadot Community Foundation advisory process among others.
The requested funding will allow us to compensate for the work done and continue our work within the Polkadot ecosystem, focusing on governance, technical support, and community initiatives. By maintaining a retroactive funding model, we ensure that contributions are compensated based on actual work completed rather than estimated upfront. To further simplify financial planning, minimise volatility, and align with community standards, this time around, we are requesting compensation in Stablecoins.
Beyond financial reimbursement, the approval of this proposal also signals the community&rsquo;s intent for us to continue our work under these same retroactive terms.
We have generated a hash of the document associated with this proposal for verifiability. Anyone can confirm that the document has not been altered by downloading it as a PDF from Google Docs and computing its hash. If the resulting hash matches the value: 0x93aa396d605cb910d3448ae64cee1df47de699f46689b5b5cb9ea6158ab362cc the document is verified as authentic. Discussion Post:&nbsp;<a href="https://../post/2823"> https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2823</a> Proposal: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I15Vru9Q5bH7TFhWtEzvOS9Uz08D8WeFMH7dnQ0vYsM/edit?usp=sharing">HERE.</a>

#119·JUST 2.0 Retroactive Compensation for Contributions to the Polkadot Ecosystem