Referendum #1315
Treasury Spend #83

#83·Creation of an AssetDIDcomm System with AssetDID Credential Verification

Treasury
13hrs 49mins ago
17 Comments
Approved
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
150.61KUSDt
Beneficiary
Check the beneficiary
Metadata
Timeline1
Comments

Quick question:
Why this dev is not included in the "standard" development roadmap of Xcavate?

Do you have a roadmap to share ?
Thx in advance.

Reply
Up

Several questions coming to my mind:

  1. Why are Milestones 1.0 and 2.0 included in the proposal. It looks like to be standard research and planning that should be covered by Xcavate directly.

If you are not decided on the tech stack or if the design is not finalized, it could be seen as premature to go on OpenGov.
Feel free to clarify these 2 steps and why it should be covered by the Treasury.

  1. Have you try to reach W3F for funding?
    If yes, what was their answer.

  2. There is 1 missing point in the project brief, which is one key point of every proposal for the OG Tracker follow-up, what is the expected duration ?

Thx in advance.

Reply
Up

I've met Richard and Alex on several occasions and have perceived them as highly professional and driven. The blend of tech and real estate expertise is what I believe it takes to successfully tokenise RWA. Xcavate is building a great use case and this AssetDID will bring good value also to other RWA projects wanting to build on Polkadot!

Reply
Up

Dear @RichardXcavate,

Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Medium Spender track requires a 50% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received three aye and one nay votes from ten members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Supporters praised the team’s credibility, the integration with KILT and Crust, and the potential benefits for blockchain adoption, including regulatory opportunities and real-world asset applications. However, concerns were raised about the lack of open-source deliverables, limited DOT token utility, and unclear direct contributions to Polkadot’s usability, leading some members to abstain or vote against the proposal.

The full discussion, along with individual members' votes and comments, can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,

Permanence DAO

Reply
Up