Nice work.
I have not seen any discussions on this topic, but Bounty creators and curators should DYOR to understand the legal requirements and responsiblities for distributing payments to individuals and entities (value greater than $10,000 in a transaction or the volume of transfers is over $100,000), specifically the Aniti-Money Laundering, KYC, Cross Border Payments, and Tax Reporting requirements and regulations.
Decentralization does not exempt those reporting requirements and bounty curators need to understand the legal liability they will have as a curator, especially a bounty that did not document, record or report transactions as required by law. If a bounty was a High Risk account — high value or voume transactions or distributed payments to high risk countries (like sanctioned countries or criminal activieis like African countries) and the bounty did not keep proper records for all transactions and recipients, I would be seeking legal advice to understand the potential exposure.
I understand the importance of anonymity and privacy in a decentralized organization, but we have ready to use tools that address the KYC/AML requireements from Kilt and Deloitte's KYC / DID offerings. There is no valid reason to not allow this — unless you have something to hide. Users have control of their data and Bounties (or Polkadot and any of its programs) will be compliant — and can be another blockchain first achievement for Polkadot and its ecosystem. HA program and more can also benefit.
The bottomline: these laws are strictly enforced and non-compliance is not an option. They exist to prevent the type of activities we have seen with some bounties and to catch those criminals with severe fines, penalties, and imprisonment — based on jurisdiction.
After speaking with my attorney, I actually have ZERO concerns about grifters, bad whales, or pillagers of the Treasury any more, they are screwed — it is only a matter of time. I definitely will not be a curator or create a bounty any time soon (definitely without having some disclosures and D&O insurance policy). Here's more info regarding AML/KYC: https://kyc360.com/knowledge-hub/resources/anti-money-laundering-regulations-a-comprehensive-guide#section-4
Highly recommend to initiate Kilt or Deloitte's KYC offering — (I am not sure if Kilt is tied to the regulatory reporting like Deloitte's offering, which is recommended).
Dear @Alice und Bob,
Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is AYE. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
> The proposal has unanimous support, with strong emphasis on its focus on refining treasury practices and promoting accountability. It is recognised for establishing social norms for bounty standards, which are seen as a valuable step forward and adaptable for future updates.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards, Permanence DAO
We are fully in support of this proposal. Increased standardization and professionalism within the bounties is essential.
As the Operator of the UX Bounty, we are actively implementing these principles and will continue refining our approach based on community feedback.
Hey yes sorry for the inconvenience!
Here's the new link:
[Deleted]
We are fully in support of this proposal. Increased standardization and professionalism within the bounties is essential.
As the Operator of the UX Bounty, we are actively implementing these principles and will continue refining our approach based on community feedback.
Sorry to use this channel, but have you updated the Notion link, or are you building a website for the bounty?
We are fully in support of this proposal. Increased standardization and professionalism within the bounties is essential.
As the Operator of the UX Bounty, we are actively implementing these principles and will continue refining our approach based on community feedback.
Aye for the moment, but we must establish a time limit for the curator services. We do not want to perpetuate curators in power. Also, a curator cannot be in more than 1 bounty. These are simple rules to avoid centralization and corruption in the polkadot resources.
Lucky Friday have voted AYE. Please consider this a temporary notification after our vote has gone on chain. If you would like additional feedback on our rationale for this vote, please join our OpenGov Public Forum on Telegram here: https://t.me/+559tyPSfmGg0NzUx
Lucky Friday provides feedback once per week (Fridays) if specifically requested in our OpenGov Public Forum, and we respectfully ask that all proponents of referenda interact with us here for the sake of transparency. Please tag our Director of Protocol Relations “Phunky” with your referendum number so that he can gather the relevant commentary from our internal deliberations.
hi, and what do you think about limited the number of bounties that can be one person as curator?
I support
Voting AYE. I really like these standards as they draw some very nice lines between encouragement and accountability and set it nicely together, also see that many of these standard metrics are not really "new ideas", but instead observed and well identified best-practices & learned lessons from previous and current bounties.
Nice work, @AliceundBob! Thank you for your continued effort towards improving the current spending mechanisms.
One element I would add to this, but we can first experiment with some bounties to see how it works, is adding a "bounty administrator", representing the community: this person would not be a curator but only follow on reports, help them draft it, get the info from curators, check balances and help applicants claim balances. The administrator would answer to the community and basically be in charge of upholding the transparency element and accountability on curators (publishing/pointing out where reports can be found, asking for info from curators and publishing this, etc). This could be some sort of "tool" for more compliance within bounty mechanism.
One administrator could perform this task for more than one bounty even. Something to think about and to try out — But very much in favour of the guidelines above.
Yes, we were considering this point for the standard. The reason why I did not add is that it would put additional HR requirements on bounties and currently, we as an eco are notoriously understaffed in the executive branch workforce.
But roles and internal differentiation is an emerging topics that we see discussed in several places. So I think it is possible to be part of a future version of the standard.
Nice work, @AliceundBob! Thank you for your continued effort towards improving the current spending mechanisms.
One element I would add to this, but we can first experiment with some bounties to see how it works, is adding a "bounty administrator", representing the community: this person would not be a curator but only follow on reports, help them draft it, get the info from curators, check balances and help applicants claim balances. The administrator would answer to the community and basically be in charge of upholding the transparency element and accountability on curators (publishing/pointing out where reports can be found, asking for info from curators and publishing this, etc). This could be some sort of "tool" for more compliance within bounty mechanism.
One administrator could perform this task for more than one bounty even. Something to think about and to try out — But very much in favour of the guidelines above.
Powered by Subsocial