Proposed by:
Requested amount:
0 DOT

#1254 · Bounty Compliance Standards 1.0

This document lays out standards which shall apply to all bounties funded through Polkadot OpenGov. The basic intention is to ensure that minimum standards are upheld before a budget is granted. It defines how these executive bodies should handle budgeting, transparency, and compliance.

1. Bounty Objectives

  1. Bounties shall have a clearly defined list of objectives by which their success can be judged by the community.
  2. Funds may only spent within the boundaries of the objectives for which the funds were requested.

2. Funding

  1. Bounties may request funding at a maximum of one time per quarter.
  2. Funding requests must include
    1. Budget breakdown: The budget has to give an honest picture of the intended spending and be broken down into positions. Positions should be explained in sufficient detail.
    2. Timeframe: The timeframe should give clarity to OpenGov when it can expect the next funding request.
    3. Transparency reports that cover past activities up to the time of the request.
  3. A funding request has to be put up for discussion in any of the established governance platforms or the Polkadot forum for at least 2 weeks before it is put to a vote.

3. Curators

  1. All curators must have a verified on-chain identity.
  2. Payment terms of curators must be outlined in the funding request. If curators shall receive payment, including for prior work, it has to be defined in the payment terms.
  3. Curators may not sign payments for work that they have executed, except curator compensation.
  4. Curators must not claim compensation for work that they already have been compensated for otherwise.
  5. Curators have to publicly declare and document any conflicts of interest that come up during their duty.
  6. Curators have to publicly report any misbehavior or other issues that conflict with the effective and efficient operation of the bounty.

4. Recipients

  1. All recipients must have a verified on-chain identity.
  2. Recipients must not claim compensation for work that they already have been compensated for otherwise.

5. Transparency

Bounties are required to provide the following materials for transparency:

  1. Official public communication channel where curators are regularly available and the public can participate
  2. Regularly updated official overview page
    1. Objectives
    2. Main contact point
    3. Link to the public communication channel
    4. A list of all current curators
    5. Links to all progress summaries and all other transparency materials listed below
    6. Links to relevant documentation
    7. Link to current child bounties h. Guidance for executors on how to participate in the bounty
  3. Spending Policy, including how curators are compensated
  4. A table of child bounties that contains: status, name, description, amount, beneficiary username, beneficiary address, links to evidence. The table is available in an open format (XLSX, CSV, or similar)
  5. Monthly progress summary posted to the bounty page, signed off by at least one curator
    1. Current status of projects
    2. Current bounty balance
    3. Current plans d. Notable changes to objectives, curation team, operations, etc.
  6. Quarterly financial statement
    1. Balance
    2. Income and Expenses
    3. Summary of curator payments
    4. Summary of payments by recipient
    5. available in an open format (XLSX, CSV or similar)

Appendix

These are additional questions we have received and considerations we have discussed. They are not included in the on-chain proposal (to keep the proposal minimal) and are intended to help you interpret the intention of the proposal.

Bounty Objectives

Would a strategy be considered the defined objectives?

A strategy is much bigger. Objectives are the first part of a strategy. So yes, a proper strategy contains objectives. However, a list of objectives doesn't yet make a strategy.

Shouldn't a bounty be able to change its objectives?

Yes. Bounties need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. However, if a bounty promises to do work to achieve a certain goal it should not take the granted money and do something different with it. If it wants to change what the money is designated for, it should have to request a change.

Likewise, it is easy for a bounty to change the objectives for future funding, because it is submitting a funding request anyways. In the context of requesting new funding, it can also communicate changed objectives.

Should there be success metrics?

In general it would be very helpful to measure against hard metrics. The problem is that it is really hard to arrive at reasonable metrics and very often people come up with bad metrics just so that they can provide KPIs. We have chosen to not include a requirement for metrics yet, because the ecosystem as a whole is not yet mature enough to have agreed on the right metrics. A good first step is to start finding the metrics that make sense before prescribing that metrics have to be used.

Should a bounty end date be defined?

In the past, OpenGov has shown to just close bounties when they stopped performing. We don't think this has to be explicitely defined.

Funding

Will bounties be denied funding if they don't follow the rules outlined in this document?

It is still up to OpenGov, but the idea is that OpenGov shall question bounties that do not provide these things. We suggest OpenGov denies funding requests if proper scoping and transparency criteria are not fulfilled.

Why should a funding request contain a budget breakdown with specific details? Aren't the details already provided with the objectives?

The objectives long-term and generic in nature. The quarterly budget is focused on specific projects. It might touch only some of the objectives or with different priorities. It is more specific. The idea is to communicate specific plans for how the money is used, not some general ambitions.

Transparency

Summary and Details

There are 2 parts to transparency: summary and details

  • For the casual observer, getting a quick overview summary is important. For them, the answer cannot be that they can "look it up in a table, drive folder, meeting notes, or on-chain". Casual observers are the majority of the participants. For the casual observer, short summaries are important. Auditors need summaries to save time.
  • For the transparency nerd, detail is important. For them (and auditors), being able to verify all the claims given in summaries is crucial. Bonus points if it is structured data to allow automation to take place.

When we talk about transparency, both aspects are needed: summary and details.

But transparency creates extra work

Yes, dealing with other peoples money requires making it transparent what you did with the money.

Simple and short is fine

You don't need a dedicated website. Updating the description on the bounty pages in governance explorers like Subsquare/Polkassembly is very much fine. It even helps casual observers find your information quickly.

The same is true for summaries, reports, etc. Keep them short and simple and save everyone time.

Overview Page

The overview page can be a the Subsquare/Polkassembly page, a dedicated website, Notion page or similar. See examples below:

Events Bounty

UX Bounty:

Quarterly Financial Statements

Financial statements should provide detailed explanations and metrics of bounty operations. See examples below:

Events Bounty

PAL

Monthly summaries

Summaries can be short bullet point summaries that gives the general idea of progress for public oversight, they dont have to be as detailed as quarterly reports.

Read more
StatusExecuted
97%Aye
Aye (247)
43.071M DOT
Nay (10)
1.21M DOT
Decision28 / 28d
Confirmation1 / 1d
0.0%0.83%
0.0%Support Threshold
0Support Threshold
Support(0.67%)
10.060M DOT
Issuance
1.51B DOT
Vote
hwaktuaNov 21, 2024

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). 

Nov 20, 2024

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

BrailleNov 11, 2024
Braille

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: 

https://polkadot-ux-bounty.notion.site/

YungBeefNov 7, 2024

[Deleted]

Lily_MendzNov 7, 2024
Braille

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.

@Braille 

Sorry to use this channel, but have you updated the Notion link, or are you building a website for the bounty?

BrailleNov 4, 2024

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.

warioNov 3, 2024

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.

BRAOct 25, 2024

hi, and what do you think about limited the number of bounties that can be one person as curator?

judasfeelingOct 24, 2024

I support

Oct 24, 2024

Perfect!

Oct 24, 2024

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.

AliceUndBobOct 24, 2024
rtti5220

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. 

Thank you @rtti5220 

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.

rtti5220Oct 24, 2024

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