Referendum #1210
Treasury Spend #60

#60·Delivery of 4 Government Use Cases to Onboard Millions onto Polkadot

Treasury
24d ago
17 Comments
Paid
  • Content
  • AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
763KUSDt
Beneficiary
This spend has been paid. Check the beneficiary
  • Metadata
  • Timeline2
Comments

I like Mandala chain and I hope they are super successful.
There is absolutely no reason the polkadot treasury should finance this, however.

Reply
Up 2

What does Mandala chain give in return for the financial support?
Mandala tokens?
A share of the expected revenue?

Reply
Up 1

Hi,
I agree with the previous answer.

If i understand the proposal, you are asking the Treasury to fund your chain, the Treasury would act as a VC.
So what does the Treasury get in return ?

So far, the Treasury is not a VC or a capital risk fund. We are not here to take 100% risks for what is not a common good for the network.
The proposal feels a bit:
"Polkadot pay, Mandala eventually makes profit".

But how do you share the return for Polkadot ? What is the ROI ?

Also, the end of the proposal could be understood as threats towards Polkadot:
"The potential costs of not funding Mandala Chain range from loss of influence in emerging markets, to slower user growth, and a setback in establishing Polkadot as a global leader in the Web3 space. Delaying support could allow others to fill the void, making it more challenging for Polkadot to penetrate these markets in the future."
-> What are you trying to say here ?
If we don't fund Mandala Chain, what happens ? You move to zkSync like Nodle ? You stop your project ?

Some parts of the proposal seems a bit clumsy.
Thx for clarifying your intentions in case you are NAYed.

Reply
Up

The proposers are answering great questions in KusDAO. Join with your discord account & then jump into the public Vote & Discord thread for Ref. 1210!

Reply
Up

When a single whale votes AYE, casting 4X the TOTAL VOTES CAST BY ALL NAY VOTES COMBINED, OpenGov has indeed failed.

There’s just no incentive for smaller $DOT holders to band together and pay transaction fees if they're inevitably outvoted by a single whale.

OpenGov voting policies are flawed today, and it is actually hurting Polkadot more than it is helping, given how much money is seemingly wasted by referendums that continue to pass simply because one or two whales vote AYE when the majority thinks it's a bad idea that shouldn't get treasury funds.

In the meantime, we continue to hear the argument that DAOs fix this (they do not, they simply cannot compete with whales - simple math says otherwise). Others say the Decentralized Voices program fixes this, which it is clearly does not.

In fact, the DV program arguably makes the problem worse, as it centralizes more votes to just a handful of decision makers that get selected by a minority group. The only actual fix (not just a bandaid) is the capping of votes once identity is solved, which will take time.

We should always be incentivizing participation of small fish, if we truly want Polkadot to be as decentralized as possible, and the current OpenGov design does the opposite.

This referendum is half-baked and should not pass in its current state, but it probably will. Thanks mr whale.

Reply
Up