- Treasury/
- Spends/
- #45/
#45·Top-up request for Reactive DOT and related works
- Content
- AI Summary
This is a top-up request for the following proposals: #812 and #948.
Accounting
| Proposal | Date | Timeline | DOT amount | DOT price in USD | USD amount | USD difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 812 | 28/05/24 | Created | 6,000 | 7.424 | 44,544 | -9,864 |
| 19/06/24 | Awarded | 5.78[1] | 34,680 | |||
| 948 | 05/07/24 | Created | 15,378 | 6.11 | 93,959 | -27,450 |
| 17/08/24 | Awarded | 4.325[1] | 66,509 | |||
| Total | -37,314 | |||||
- Average of the opening and closing price.
Requesting amount: 37,314 USDT
Current progress
Proposal #812 has been fully completed with all stretch goals achieved, and the current proposal #948 is progressing well. I always strive to go the extra mile and deliver beyond expectations. The following sections will recap everything I’ve produced so far:
Libraries
- Front-end utilities library: reactivedot.dev
- Wallets connector library: dotconnect.dev
- Forum posts:
Applications
In addition to building libraries, I've also taken the initiative to create a developer console during my free time, aptly named "DOTConsole". This application serves three main purposes:
- A means to test and experiment with my libraries.
- A reference application showcasing the ease of building with next-gen libraries.
- Following positive feedback, it may also serve as a potential devtool replacement for the aging PJS App, without the downside of being geared toward everyday users.
You can check out the full details in this forum post. But here’s a quick sneak peek:
Other activities within the ecosystem
- Being independently funded by the treasury has allowed me to contribute to various other projects within the Polkadot ecosystem. You can view these contributions on my GitHub profile.
- I've also submitted my application to join the Polkadot Tooling Collective (PoToC) to further cement my part as a long-term contributor.
Q&A
Q: Why did the previous proposals request DOT?
A: When #812 was being prepared, requesting in stablecoins wasn't generally available and still wasn't well established by the time #948 was created. My very first proposal (#811) was incorrectly formatted due to a front-end bug, which I was told occurred because of ongoing upgrades to support stablecoins. This experience made me hesitant to try something not well documented. To play it safe, I requested in DOT. All future proposals, if any, will be requested in stable amounts instead.
Q: Why didn't you request top-up for #812 right after it was awarded?
A: I'm still relatively new to OpenGov, having only been involved for roughly three months as of this writing. Requesting additional funds immediately after the passing of my first proposal, without strong deliverables proving my ethic, would be in bad taste in my opinion.
[!NOTE]
For any further questions please leave your comment below!
Closing remark
I hope that these deliverables, along with the many extra works I've been taking on, clearly demonstrate my strong commitment to Polkadot and my consistent effort to always go above and beyond. Therefore, reassures you of the investment Polkadot OpenGov is putting in me (including this top-up), as well as my personal long-term investment to improve the Polkadot ecosystem. 🙏
SubSquare is requesting a top-up for two proposals, #812 and #948, which have been completed and are progressing well respectively. The total amount requested is 37,314 USDT.
SubSquare has built front-end utilities and wallets connector libraries, and a developer console called DOTConsole.
SubSquare has also contributed to various other projects within the Polkadot ecosystem and has submitted an application to join the Polkadot Tooling Collective.
SubSquare requested DOT instead of stablecoins for the previous proposals due to stablecoins not being well established at the time.
SubSquare did not request a top-up for #812 immediately after it was awarded to prove their work ethic.
- Metadata
- Timeline3
I understand the sentiment against top-ups. I really do. However, I really think that this case is different than most, at least in the sense that Tien has never profited from the DOT going up, and because when he submitted the proposals the option of requesting stables wasn't there. Also, as @Victor Oliva pointed out @tien is doing an incredible job, so far.
There's currently a bug on Subsquare that prevents HTML tables from being rendered correctly. Kindly refer to this link for the same proposal on Polkassembly as a temporary workaround 🙏.