@OG_Tracker 

Appreciate the rating, thank you!

OG Tracker Rating 3/3

Clear display of deliverables✅

• Policy Positioning & Legislative Influence
• Amplified Visibility & U.S.-Focused Marketing
• Strategic Integration Opportunities
• Expansion Beyond Texas

Clear display of a valid direct point of contact✅

• Email: [email protected]

Clear display of proposal’s duration✅

• The duration of this proposal is 12 months.

OGT Rating aims to help voters make better informed decisions and direct proposers towards certain common-good practices. We are providing feedback based on 3 simple yet crucial criteria which we believe should be included in every OpenGov referenda.

@xcRom1.dot While I understand and appreciate your concerns, I don’t believe this proposal should become the battleground for a broader structural issue around role transparency. That’s an important discussion that is better suited for a dedicated forum thread or community initiative, not individual proposals that are following current norms. I’ve been transparent about my responsibilities, and each role I’ve held has had distinct scopes and deliverables.

This proposal is focused, time-bound, and relatively modest in funding compared to others currently live. Its goal is straightforward: to ensure Polkadot maintains a meaningful presence in Texas, a state with outsized influence in blockchain policy, at a time when other ecosystems are actively establishing themselves in my state. I’m located just an hour from the state capital, deeply invested in Polkadot’s long-term success as seen by my activity within our ecosystem, and aligned with the broader community’s desire to see Polkadot expand its reach.

I am hopeful that the community will evaluate this proposal on its own merit, and I remain open about supporting broader improvements in the proper setting.

@Grizz375 Thank you for taking the time to clarify and adjust the proposal accordingly.

While the additional context is helpful, I still think this raises a larger issue about role accumulation and visibility within Treasury-funded initiatives. Full transparency shouldn’t rely solely on individual goodwill, we may need clearer guidelines or expectations in place.

This could be a good opportunity for the community to define some simple disclosure principles to support long-term trust in governance processes.

Hi @xcRom1.dot Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and for raising this important point around transparency.

I did include my role as community manager for the Discord as I think it helps voters understand I am in alignment with their interests. I did not include the Anti-scam team as I did not feel that was relevant. That said, I agree it would be helpful for the community to see the full picture, and I will update the proposal to reflect my current commitments.

For clarification:

I am no longer part of the moderation bounty, as I now manage the Polkadot Discord entirely under the marketing bounty. This is noted in the proposal. I have added additional text to ensure that voters understand it is funded through the marketing bounty.

I also serve as a curator and content creator for the Anti-Scam Team. With the recent update to the bounty structure, this role now has a significantly reduced workload. I have also added this part

Given these adjustments and the delegation in place within each initiative, I believe I’m well-positioned to take on this additional proposal and deliver effectively. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and will make sure the proposal reflects this context moving forward.

Thank you, @grizz375 for this proposal.

I think some clarification is needed regarding the issue of multiple roles and remuneration. To date, it appears that you are involved in several tasks already funded by the Treasury (Discord moderation, anti-scam team and marketing bounty). These items are not mentioned in this proposal.

In the interests of transparency and good governance, would it not be appropriate in this case to include a section specifying your current remunerated commitments within the ecosystem. This would allow the community to more accurately assess your workload, any potential conflicts of interest, and the consistency of the resources being requested.

This is not about questioning the legitimacy of the work proposed, but about encouraging a broader reflection on transparency standards and the fair distribution of Treasury funding in a decentralized ecosystem.

Hi @pathrocknetwork Thanks for voting. I would really appreciate any feedback on the nay so that I may improve the proposal.

@15a9uAgkQz3VJEx2ksMxChtQFZohDx8pr6vbEDbMDKagro2b 

Apologies, this was corrected as it was decided to ask for USDC. That is out of the proposal

@15a9...ro2b

I am unsure of why using AI to improve the original writing would be an issue?

no.

$10,000 to buffer against DOT price volatility

lmao. ye. no

I am happy to answer any and all questions in regards to this proposal.

I never want nobidy die for bread in .and i part of my asset special to pur peaple in iran

I've been working with the TBC for the past year and have already onboarded Judge so he's ready to hit the ground running as I pivot to doing development work. With his background, I think he'll do great, and he's already shown quite a bit of initiative and thoughtfulness within the TBC.