ChaosDAO would like to provide the following feedback from our community. We offer this feedback voluntarily in the spirit of OpenGov, in order to help teams improve their proposals so we can all build the network together.
- Although members generally voted in support of the proposed curatorial changes, some members believe that it may be better to merge this Bounty with the IBP Bounty
ChaosDAO votes as a collective based on the results of our anonymous internal voting procedures. Our members are not required to provide any feedback about why they have voted in a particular direction. Similarly, to respect our members' right to anonymity, we will not be sharing the names of individuals who have chosen to voluntarily provide feedback. You can find out more about how we vote and how to get in contact with us here: https://x.com/ChaosDAO/status/1762986093316587995
Kus DAO have voted AYE (first voting).
✅ Proven experience with similar bounties, enhanced processes, and stakeholder engagement.
❌ Concerns over potential time constraints and compensation clarity.
💪 Get involved: 🔗 Discord Invite or Telegram Invite
💬 Join the discussion: 🔗 Discussion Thread
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.
Dear @Paradox,
Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum and simple majority according to our voting policy. This proposal has received five aye and zero nay votes from ten members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
> The referendum received majority support, with members expressing confidence in the new curators’ experience and ability to revitalise the bounty. Supporters emphasized the importance of having a functioning bounty for this category, with plans to evaluate outcomes after this phase. However, several members abstained, citing insufficient context or concerns over some curators’ past involvement in other bounties and associated community complaints. Overall, the proposal was largely well-received but faced some reservations.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Can you provide more info on current currators proposed? Do they have experience in managing something similar? As I understand they just took over managing the same thing for Kusama but mentioning some of the things they managed to accomplish in this short amount of time would strenghten this proposal.
Hi Lily,
Thanks for replying, firstly yes the bounty (as with all others) should be compliant with the requirements of WFC 1254. Not necessarily because WFC 1254 exists but this is the level of transparency and reporting that should be expexted from all bounties. Any failings with regards to this in relation to bounty 31 falls within the gaps I mentioned in my initial post.
You points with regards to the curators is a resonable one, we wouldn't want to move from one bad situation into another, as they say, from the frying pan into the fire.
In support of the proposed team, I can attest that they're already hard at work putting together a framework for payments, reporting, extrinsics and top-up proposals. Payouts have already been made on Kusama within a short time, they're actually engaging providers based on performance reports and they're preparing for the next round of tender in a very pragmatic way.
They have also extracted previous payout information and summaried payouts as seen with the sheets below.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qUmjxXYcHnJCqm2V9PakjMlhdiOXmJOM8flZG787bM4/edit?gid=0#gid=0
These guys are working already.
I think it's great that the group of curators for each Bounty is updated regularly. The proposed group is already acting as curators in other bounties and also holding other roles within the ecosystem. I want to ensure that adding this new responsibility won’t interfere with their existing tasks or lead to any being neglected.
Another question is whether you plan to adapt the Bounty based on what was proposed in WFC 1254?
Powered by Subsocial