Proposed by:
Requested amount:
0 DOT

#1368 · Closing Bounty 27. Polkadot Parachain Assets Onramp Bounty Program

Currently this bounty has no activity and the last recorded activity was 9 months ago. It has only 3 child bounties recorded.

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/bounties/27

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/child-bounties/27_745

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/child-bounties/27_747

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/child-bounties/27_746

223 days ago, curators became unassigned no further activity has been recorded since (i.e. Bounty was not extended and it has become curatorless).

https://polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/20889489-2

This bounty was meant to be reactive for all parachain teams looking to integrate their parachains into the Banxa on/off ramps but it's had no activity and the former curators and people spearheading this bounty are working on other efforts away from Polkadot. We found no parties interested in the integration proposed by this bounty as well as curators willing to take over this bounty during the discussion phase which, as of now remains abandoned. We consider there are grounds for closing this bounty due to inactivity and lack of impact on payment rails and on/off ramps.

We have reached to the original proposer on X without reply. So now we submit this referendum to OpenGov to decide the future of Bounty 27.

This referendum follows the discussion on Polkassembly at: https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2629

and the socialization on X on our account: https://x.com/saxemberg/status/1869020723026821326

Read more
StatusConfirming · 2d
99%Aye
Aye (298)
44.52M DOT
Nay (6)
28.10K DOT
Decision28 / 28d
Confirmation4 / 7d
0.0%0.87%
0.0%Support Threshold
0Support Threshold
Support(0.70%)
≈ 10.66M DOT
Issuance
≈ 1.53B DOT
Vote
14rp4CvtyN3WSftrndyNxjJFi4cGXsgrE9gFr528QSYFvPTuJan 23

"Our vote on this proposal is NAY." you guys mean AYE ;)

@Saxemberg Governance corrected, thanks!

ChaosDAOJan 15

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.

  1. Members were generally in support of the closure of Bounty 27, especially since a lot of its activities are currently being carried out by the DeFi 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

The_Kus_DAOJan 9

Kus DAO have voted AYE (first voting).

 

💪 Get involved: 🔗 Discord Invite or Telegram Invite

💬 Join the discussion: 🔗 Discussion Thread

~@Pieky

LuckyFridayGovProxyJan 8

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.

Jan 7

"Our vote on this proposal is NAY." you guys mean AYE ;)

Jan 6

Dear @Saxemberg Governance,

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

The Treasurer track requires a 60% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received nine aye and zero nay votes from ten members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The referendum received unanimous support, with members agreeing to shut down the inactive bounty. They praised the proposal’s effort to clean up inactive initiatives, noting that there is no reason to maintain a bounty that has been inactive for nine months.

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

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

Powered by Subsocial