We support again the proposal.
It's a simple ratification of a previous positive result.

Our previous rationale was:
_Le Nexus votes AYE to ensure the continuity of a key infrastructure for NFTs on Polkadot.
However, the team must work toward a self-sustaining economic model to avoid long-term dependency on the Treasury._

Even though this proposal was resubmitted due to a technical error and the previous one passed OpenGov, my position remains the same. The request still centralizes all critical NFT infrastructure under a single team, fully funded by the Treasury, with no real sustainability or contingency plan. Infrastructure, product features, and artist support are bundled together, making it impossible to evaluate the true cost of the public-good components. If funding stops, the proposal itself states that indexing, APIs, and marketplace functionality would immediately cease, which highlights exactly how fragile and dependent the ecosystem becomes when everything relies on one group.

On top of that, the idea that Chaotic is the only team working on NFTs in Polkadot is no longer accurate. NFTAA, recently funded by the Web3 Foundation, is actively building and is even collaborating with KodaDot, which, if I’m not mistaken, is the same team behind this proposal. This clearly shows the ecosystem is not limited to a single actor and would benefit from a more open, shared and multi-team approach to infrastructure.

For these reasons, lack of sustainability, centralization, bundled budgeting and the existence of other teams like NFTAA, I still consider this proposal too risky and will vote NAY.

[My comment on 1768](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1768#2)

[@The White Rabbit](13pgGkebYEYGLhA7eR6sBM1boEvq86V9adonjswtYe1iDK2K-polkadot) 

Interesting choice to nay already approved referenda, even tho the community clearly doesn’t share the concerns you do. 

NFTAA is a pallet, however whether this will be used or not still depends on the wider community adoption. They forked kodadot, which is completely fine since it’s open source, however **there is no collaboration between KodaDot and the NFTAA team**.





[@damsky](15VmrRmgPhKMfBanjS5ei4dCcVL54GMLCfnVRryynSYzvyys-polkadot) ![](<a href="https://ibb.co/1Jjw0kNN"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/yB7bNrCC/chrome-capture-2025-11-20.png" alt="chrome-capture-2025-11-20" border="0"></a>)
Personally, I understand that the two teams know each other, and even met at a meetup. I see on their website that they're collaborating, but whether that's true or not, I don't know.

However, I don't think my vote will influence the final outcome of this referenda.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **first** vote on this proposal is **AYE**. Below is the evaluation of our [voting policy v0.3](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.3.html) on this referendum:

```
MEDIUM SPENDER
--------------
8 available members
🟢 4 • 🔴 0 • ⚪️ 0
✓ ≥50.0% required participation met
▶ Ayes >50.0% of all votes
🟢 AYE
```

Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The voters approved the ratification proposal, acknowledging that the originally approved payment had failed due to a technical error during the migration. Some members explained that they changed their initial positions out of respect for the community’s decision on the previous proposal, while others noted that the original approval justified the current ratification. They emphasized that the issue was not with the proposal’s content but with the execution error related to the migration of Asset Rates. In their assessment, the solution was fair since it merely ensured the community’s original intent was fulfilled by correcting a technical oversight.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmUuwvXCka8en6KtUjn2Pq7eLs2xpYi6DBj6jufcgV15NL).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort V Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1790. Ratify Approved Referendum #1768 - execution error due to AH migration. The support for a previously accepted referendum.

Vote overrule procedure:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmfAFGaXkLxhNRuvdZDapScAQenX597U1vdzRihTR2Suqd

# Ratify Approved Referendum #1768 - execution error due to AH migration&#x20;

**Context:** This proposal ratifies the payment for already-approved referendum #[1768](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1768), which failed to execute due to a technical error during the Asset Hub migration.

**Background:** Referendum #1768 was successfully approved by the community for Chaotic's critical NFT infrastructure maintenance. However, the execution failed because Asset Rates were not correctly configured after the Asset Hub migration.

**Resolution:** After consultation with the Web3 Foundation, Parity, and the Polkassembly team, we are submitting this ratification proposal to ensure the approved funding reaches its intended destination. The underlying Asset Rates issue is being resolved through referendum #[1787](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1787).

**Technical Details:**

* Original referendum: #[1768](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1768) (approved)
* Requested amount: $180,000 USDC
* Issue: Asset conversion failure post-AH migration

**This is a technical correction to execute an already-approved community decision. No changes have been made to the original proposal scope or budget.**

We appreciate the community's patience as we navigate these migration-related technical challenges.

- This proposal fixes a payment that was already approved
- The original payment was for important NFT work
- A computer error stopped the payment from going through
- The error happened during a system upgrade
- The money amount is $180,000
- Experts have checked and confirmed the solution
- This just makes the original decision work correctly
- No changes were made to what was originally approved

#204·Ratify Approved Referendum #1768 - execution error due to AH migration

Ratify Approved Referendum #1768 - execution error due to AH migration