Principles in Action: Helikon Polkadot Governance Archive

This micro-site documents the Polkadot OpenGov voting activity of kukabi, the founder of Helikon, as delegated by the W3F as part of the Decentralized Voices (DV) program.

Please find here the original DV application dated February 10th, 2024.

This site is a work in progress, updated daily.

Guiding Principles

Values

Accountability: Responsibility for actions and outcomes. Quantifiable results. Open communication.
Professionalism: Focus and expertise. High standards. Attention to detail.
Integrity: Honesty. Ethical practices. Transparency.
Dedication: Commitment to craft. Community service. Persistence and passion.
Evolution: Gradual growth. Continuous improvement. Resilience.

Fields of Interest

Early-stage protocol and tooling development.
Research in software development, data, business and marketing.
Original, high quality educational and promotional content with well though-out strategy.
Artworks and creative coding.

Votes Summary


Number of Proposals Voted	70
Erroneous Proposals	9
Valid Proposals	61
Aye	19
Naye	31
Abstain	11

Votes

Small Tipper

Small Tipper track allows spendings up to 250 DOT from the treasury.

Votes Summary


Number of Proposals Voted	5
Erroneous Proposals	0
Valid Proposals	5
Aye	4
Naye	1
Abstain	0

Votes

Referenda 500-599

Small Tipper Referenda 500 - 599


Number	538
Title	Polkadot SDK PR #3453 `nomination-pools`: add permissionless condition to `chill`
Proponent	Parity Tip Bot
Amount	80 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Parity Tip Bot proposals are initiated by the Polkadot SDK core development team as a result of approved contributions to the Polkadot SDK codebase. Initiation of this tip happened here.


Number	543
Title	Retroactive Small Tips for Content (February)
Proponent	Pitcoin
Amount	0.00000002 DOT ❗ Original request is 200 DOT, proponent entered 200 planck
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @Pitcoin, I went through your content, and while reading I started thinking that the articles were lacking structure. Each article felt like being exposed to flashes of sentences and memey images rather than a well-structured article that streams information. Also, there are too many images in your articles. But then I noticed that the articles are actually just your X threads copied and pasted one after another. Which brings me to, you state that you are asking for funds for 14 pieces of content, but in reality this is only 7 pieces of content, duplicated on X and Polkaverse. Amount asked is not a lot, and I find effort valuable. but I don’t find it integral that you’re inflating your content count. Nay from me. PS#1 If it was not about the integrity of the proposal, I would still think twice before granting ~250USD (200DOT * 9USD / 7) per each of your content. PS#2 I find your efforts valuable, but you should work more on your content. There should be more to it than flashing tweets in a thread. kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	571
Title	Polkadot SDK PR #3471 removed `pallet::getter` usage from cumulus pallets
Proponent	Parity Tip Bot
Amount	20 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Parity Tip Bot proposals are initiated by the Polkadot SDK core development team as a result of approved contributions to the Polkadot SDK codebase. Initiation of this tip happened here.


Number	578
Title	Polkadot SDK PR #3371 removed `pallet::getter` usage from example pallets
Proponent	Parity Tip Bot
Amount	20 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Parity Tip Bot proposals are initiated by the Polkadot SDK core development team as a result of approved contributions to the Polkadot SDK codebase. Initiation of this tip happened here.


Number	579
Title	Polkadot SDK PR #3456 removed `pallet::getter` usage from example `pallet-collective`
Proponent	Parity Tip Bot
Amount	20 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Parity Tip Bot proposals are initiated by the Polkadot SDK core development team as a result of approved contributions to the Polkadot SDK codebase. Initiation of this tip happened here.

Big Tipper

Big Tipper track allows spendings up to 1’000 DOT from the treasury.

Votes Summary


Number of Proposals Voted	2
Erroneous Proposals	0
Valid Proposals	2
Aye	2
Naye	0
Abstain	0

Votes

Referenda 500-599

Big Tipper Referenda 500 - 599


Number	559
Title	Tip for maintenance of the ORML pallets
Proponent	Greg Zaitsev
Amount	1’000 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, I don’t understand why 439 should not be covering this, but I support the proposal. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	569
Title	Retroactive Tip For Solo Content Creation
Proponent	AsyncGoku
Amount	900 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Goku is a prominent contributor to the ecosystem, and his style has been improving since the WagMedia days. I support the proposal, thanks for the contribution. link

Small Spender

Small Spender track allows spendings up to 10’000 DOT from the treasury.

Votes Summary


Number of Proposals Voted	13
Erroneous Proposals	0
Valid Proposals	13
Aye	3
Naye	8
Abstain	2

Votes

Small Spender Referenda 450 - 499


Number	479
Title	ETHDenver 2024 - Polkadot - Event Recap Video Marketing - Amplify Presence at One of the Largest Blockchain Conferences
Proponent	Tiger Mode Media
Amount	1’000 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello, Thanks for the proposal. I find the proposed production valuable, but today is ETHDenver’s last day, and as far as I can see you haven’t done the necessary pre-production as outlined in your proposal. Pre-production is very essential because you need to work with the Polkadot team there, and plan the shooting. So my questions are: Have you completed the pre-production steps as outlined in your proposal? Have you been shooting at ETHDenver so far (today is the last day)? I’m nay’ing until I receive your answers, because there’s no indication of completed pre-production work in your proposal, and I don’t think it’s possible to deliver without that step. If you have done the preparatory work, and if you’ve been shooting at ETHDenver in line with your production plan then I’ll be happy to turn my vote to aye. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	496
Title	Veles project proposal - Carbon credits pallet
Proponent	Ceres Blockchain Solutions
Amount	5’000 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @Ceres Blockchain Solutions, Thank you for your proposal. I initially abstained, but after carefully reading it again, I find the proposal very interesting and well thought-out. As I was reading through, I found that my questions were answered regarding the much critical disincentive/incentive mechanisms. One downside to the proposal is that the development of just the pallet appears to be a relatively minor part of this business. I wish the proposal had covered both the development of the pallet and the establishment of a business around it, bringing together currently active carbon credit projects and credit validators. All the effort only seems to make sense once a multitude of these two user types are actively using the system. Still, I’m casting my vote in favor, hoping that you guys will be willing to develop this into a fully-fledged business. Additionally, I find the amount requested to be reasonable. PS #1: The word “validator” is already heavily utilized in the protocol, finding a different name for this user role would be better. PS #2: The “Other Solutions vs Veles” section should include links to other potential projects within the ecosystem in this field. I would appreciate it if you list them as an answer to this comment. link

Small Spender Referenda 500 - 549


Number	517
Title	Polkadot Desktop Wallet Tutorial by Altcoin Daily
Proponent	ALTCOINDAILY
Amount	5’086.39 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @ALTCOINDAILY, First of all, I’m very disappointed (though not surprised, unfortunately) to see that the treasury has already paid you $110K for the three YouTube videos you shared in your post. I usually reject content proposals, because they’re mostly very basic unintelligent parroted shill content, and your last proposal is a monumental example of it. It wouldn’t have been so terrible at a much lower price tag, like $1K for all 3 videos, for instance. So in my opinion, you 110x over-charged the treasury, it’s up to the community to how to call this act. Although I have a very high opinion of Talisman, your proposal is a very easy nay for me, basically because I see absolutely no point at such outrageous cost, a whopping $55K with today’s rate for a single video. Regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	521
Title	Explainer video for Polkadot 2.0 - easy and understandable
Proponent	creme_fraiche_
Amount	1’500 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @creme_fraiche_, I like the video, thanks for sharing it, but it will still be cryptic for “those people who aren’t that much into tech,” as you stated in your slides. If you aim to target those individuals, you really need to start with why Polkadot exists in the first place. Someone who doesn’t know this will not understand anything about the details of Polkadot 2.0 either. I think I would be willing to support a more comprehensive video series because I find your style approachable and fun. However, I find $13K USD too high a cost for a single video if we’re aiming to produce quite a number of them, so I’m voting nay for now. My recommendation would be to lower the price per video for a set number of videos, and retroactively or proactively charge in milestones instead. In other words, lower cost per video, and more than one video per milestone. For instance, a total of 10 videos, 5 milestones, 2 videos per milestone delivery. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	523
Title	Rising Karting Star Seeks Polkadot Partnership (withdrawn)
Proponent	Nmarshall
Amount	8’260 DOT
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Hello @Nmarshall, I think your proposal is missing details on Nishaun’s track record so far. It’s claimed that he’s a rising star, but as someone who is completely unfamiliar with this field, I can’t find any evidence in the proposal to back this claim. There should have been a substantial “Who is Nishaun Marshall” section in my opinion. In summary: I don’t find the asked amount too high. I don’t think Polkadot treasury should sponsor everything listed in the proposal. It may or may not provide good return on investment, not enough evidence in the proposal, just some suggestions. At the given scale, it may be a good experiment for precedence purposes. So, I don’t feel strongly either way. I abstain. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	530
Title	[Small Spender] Referendum #530
Proponent	CryotoEQ
Amount	0.0000005867 DOT ❗ Original request is 5’867 DOT, proponent entered 5867 planck.
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello, It seems like the proposal amount was set incorrectly in DOT, not Plancks, ending up in a total of 0.0000005867 DOT. Please resubmit your proposal. However, I think you should charge per quarterly report (slightly higher per report could be acceptable in this case) rather than for all 4 reports together, so we can evaluate the return on investment after each report. You would have my support for a per-report payment model. Best regards, kutsal \| Helikon link


Number	531
Title	1TRIBE: Africa On DOT - Phase II
Proponent	1TRIBE
Amount	9’986.112944 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @1TRIBE, First of all, you need to place the decision deposit otherwise your proposal is going to time out in 9 days 7 hours as of me writing this comment. It appears that for your first proposal you have received 47,281 DOT, roughly 288,000 USD on the 29th of March, 2023. Some findings of mine from your report Phase I report: You claim that you have produced 72 videos, and 45 additional videos (117 videos in total) but your YouTube channel has only 5 videos, and they have 170 views in total. Can you share links to the rest of the videos? Can you share the recordings to the 25 video ads that you place in your shows? I did check your website, and it’s impossible to say that it’s rich in content. News section has 22 pieces, it’s hard to say that the content is impressive. TV section has only 3 videos, all posted on the 17th of August, 2023. Overall, I find the idea of merging entertainment, commerce and education good, and Africa could really be a fertile ground for such development, but the work so far doesn’t at all justify the $288K USD of funds received. Nay from me. In my opinion you have clearly failed to deliver. Please feel free to respond to this comment with the justification of the budget spent and the missing material I pointed at above. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	533
Title	Meetups Bounty [#43]
Proponent	giottodf
Amount	5’000 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @giottodf, Thanks for the proposal. The requested amount is reasonable, the curator list features reputable names, and the Telegram chat is already displaying good activity and self-organization. Aye. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	541
Title	Universal Hybrid Substrate Faucet
Proponent	Shankar_Warang
Amount	4’471 DOT
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Hello Shankar \| Edgeware DAO,<br/ Although the asked amount is not high and the projects seems to be well thought-out, I’m going to abstain for now and view the outcome of the discussion on the forum. Birdo & xlc’s comments, which imply the redundancy of your solution, have not been answered yet. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link

Small Spender Referenda 550 - 599


Number	551
Title	AmharicChain Polkadot Academy
Proponent	Menilik
Amount	3’600 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @menilik, Thanks for the proposal. I find it valuable that the proposal is coming from a community that has much growth potential, and I support the content of the proposal. Yet, your proposal is missing critical details such as below. For which mobile platforms are you going to develop the app(s)? iOS, Android? Both? And what is your development method? Multiplatform, native? Are you going to have a backend? Once you provide more details as required by the previous item, I think you need to provide evidence of track record of your team, so the voters can be confident that your team is able to deliver the promises. On the list of your team, there’s only one GitHub account, which belongs to the backend developer. There’s nobody with mobile developer title on your team. You seem to be the lead developer, but there’s no link to your code repositories or examples of released work. Syllabus also needs more work. For instance, you have a section for Smart Contract Development with Substrate, but this a very large topic which could possibly include training for Ink!, a smart contract programming language for the contracts pallet. Or, are you going to include content for EVM development on Substrate? I could add more. To summarize, I believe that the treasury should support this kind of development in the Ethiopian ecosystem and I find your proposal valuable in this respect, and you’re probably one of a handful of people that can carry it out, but the proposal is missing details. I’m rejecting this proposal it in expectation of a more professionally prepared proposal that has: A better syllabus with more granularity. More technical details on the development of the app(s) and the backend. More details on the members of the team, track record and links to available past work. Please don’t be discouraged if your proposal gets rejected and re-apply with a stronger proposal. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	566
Title	[Small Spender] Referendum #566
Proponent	PINK
Amount	0.0000006621 DOT ❗ Original request is 6’621 DOT, proponent entered 6’621 planck.
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	It seems like the amount was submitted in Plancks (6621) rather than DOT. Current ask is 0.0000006621 DOT. Preimage also not found. Please fix and resubmit your proposal. link


Number	567
Title	Pinkdrop: Powering User Engagement and Ecosystem Growth
Proponent	PINK
Amount	7’215 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @PINK, Thanks for the proposal. I find Pink extremely valuable because of its grassroots orientation, and I’m a big fan of carefree experimental debuts, which Pink has achieved with great success. To me it’s probably one of the most interesting movements in Polkadot. So I think it should definitely be supported. Yet, the proposal is missing background information on the team.. “Delivery Team Overview” section offers promises, but not backed by evidence. Has the team previously developed any mobile apps and/or smart contracts? If so, could you point us at the released apps and source code? If not, do you have plans to recruit? There should still be ways to accomplish this if you prefer to remain anon. So, I think the proposal could receive more attention around the team’s background and track record. I currently abstain, but would be very happy to support an updated proposal with more comprehensive team credentials. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link<br/ Hi @The Great Escape, Thanks for the details. I’m changing my vote to support the proposal. Thanks for keeping the bill fair, and I’m looking very much forward to the delivery. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon


Number	568
Title	Proposal: Codigo Brazuca + Polkadot Brazil - Tech Academy - from Basic to Advanced - 8 Months Track
Proponent	Parachainboy
Amount	9’500 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @Parachainboy, Thanks for the proposal. My vote is nay, and here are my reasons: It was clear that the initial proposal contained a number of technical gaps pointing at the proponent’s lack of knowledge and experience on the subject matter, which was also made clear on the AAG session. Now we have an updated proposal, but there are still technical gaps in it. For instance, the “Polkadot Infrastructure Setup/Tooling” in the detailed track document contains the item “Building your first Substrate blockchain”, which is not possible without prior Rust knowledge. However, Rust training only beings two steps after this step, following “Final Project Assessment Exam”. The proposal states “programming in the PolkaVm! language” as one of the targets, yet PolkaVM (PVM) is not a language, and even if you meant to teach PVM, which is under development, it’s going to be extremely heavy for students who are not even proficient at Rust. Also, there’s nothing about PVM in the detailed track document, which is a discrepancy. We asked you on AAG to include in your proposal the list of tutors with relevant background information, but the updated document is still lacking the information. I have no doubt regarding the good intentions of the proponents, but as demonstrated above, I cannot find the evidence that they’re able to deliver a course that is as advanced as this one. It’s a crowded proposal with errors, and it lacks solid proof. You can make your job much easier by actually working with Substrate professionals on both content and delivery, or first getting on top of the matter yourself and then preparing a proposal. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link

Medium Spender

Medium Spender track allows spendings up to 100’000 DOT from the treasury.

Votes Summary


Number of Proposals Voted	40
Erroneous Proposals	8
Valid Proposals	32
Aye	7
Naye	19
Abstain	6

Votes

Medium Spender Referenda 450 - 499


Number	450
Title	Project Glove: Introducing Capital Efficiency and Pseudo-Anonymity on top of OpenGov
Proponent	Address Labs
Amount	81’836 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, Thanks for the proposal. My vote remains nay, and here are my thoughts: “Capital inefficiency” in voting is by design. I think we can also call it “the price the voter has to pay” to influence the network in their desired direction. For instance, in your first example, the nay voter initially votes with 100 DOT @ 4x, and if the outcome is nay then they end up locking 2 DOT @ 2x. I don’t find it fair. Although an interesting idea and it could be a worthy experiment, I don’t think it should be supported by the treasury at this point at a 700K USD price tag. I don’t think low governance participation is solely due to capital inefficiency and possibility of being doxxed. These are just two of a myriad of reasons. I can see from your comments that the team has delivered a grant and been active in the field, but as far as I can see you have not delivered a Kusama or Polkadot treasury grant yet. Plus, the two of the GitHub accounts you shared (noah-foltz and hoco-gov) are almost completely blank, and the third one (roger-that-dev), although more active, does not seem to have any Substrate-related activity. These combined do not present enough credibility to me for an ask of 700K USD. I find the privacy voting an interesting topic, yet I think that it should only be a small scale experiment with a PoC, again, with a much less budget than 700K USD. To close, I think an initial PoC work awarded a 50-to-100K USD grant by the Kusama treasury could be a reasonable start for this project. link


Number	470
Title	Games Bounty [38]
Proponent	giottodf
Amount	100’000 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, I believe that for an ask of this size, a clear and quantified value proposition and flexible planning supported by a strong feedback cycle are pretty much required. This way, a small number of well-reputed curators can guide their judgement. So it seems like I’m pretty much in the opposite camp to the “non-method” offered by this proposal. Good luck! link


Number	471
Title	BD Bounty [39]
Proponent	giottodf
Amount	100’000 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, It strikes me to see that there is no planning or structure to a bounty proposal that’s asking for ~800K USD with today’s rate. There’s no detailed description, no solid value proposition, no business plan, no roadmap, just some rough notes on the bounty page. Noone can deny the importance of business development, and yes, talent outside the borders of the ecosystem should be somehow attracted, good ideas, but I would certainly expect a proposal of this sort to have some serious structure. It’s really not possible to take this proposal seriously the way it is now, so it’s an easy nay for me. Plans and documents may not always work, but there are reasons why people use them, one of them is accountability. Otherwise you’re asking for an enormous amount of trust, which is directly against why I’m personally here. Good luck. kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	492
Title	Proposal: 2024 Polkadot Decoded China (Hong Kong) July 27-28 (Time TBD, usually two weeks after the Flagship Decoded)
Proponent	Aitijia’er
Amount	54’121 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello Aitijia’er, Thanks a lot for the proposal. As I stated in our Element exchange and Zoom call, the community seems to be in favor of Hong Kong or Singapore over China, and so far you seem to be fine with moving the location to Hong Kong. So, that’s one update that should already go into the proposal in my opinion. Yet, even with the location change I’m rejecting this proposal in favor of an Asian bounty that would cover this conference, the contents of proposals 525 and 539, and possibly more activity in the area. Asian bounty should board trusted curators from both the Asian and Western communities. I believe that such a mixed curator board would help better connect these two communities, and offer a better system for checks and balances. Best of luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	493
Title	LiteSend - remittance service secured by Polkadot
Proponent	Electrocoin
Amount	28’761 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello Electrocoin, Thanks for the proposal. I like the idea and the way in which AssetHub gets utilized in the remittance process. Whereas, for the process to work, both sender and recipient partner companies need to be in the countries that allow international crypto payments among legal entities. For example, Turkey, which is on your list of target countries, has imposed a ban on crypto payments. So it appears to me that this project is going to encounter more legal challenges than technical ones. Yet it’s still a valuable opportunity to test AssetHub in a real-world application. I vote in favor. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	494
Title	Implementing a Polkadot-native system parachain for data storage: Phase 1/3
Proponent	Eiger
Amount	65’178 DOT
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Hello @Eiger, Thanks for the proposal. Milestones (3.2) section of your proposal documents M1 Research budget as 11 FTE, totaling $275K, yet the Overview section (3.1) states it as 18.25 FTE, ~$456K. What constitutes the 7.25 FTE difference? Best regards, kutsal \| Helikon link @Eiger for another question on the budgeting, a quick search on the web shows the senior developer salary in Finland in the range of €6-12K monthly. Could you please explain the $25K monthly cost on your proposal for an engineer? I understand the technical leads could cost more than senior devs, but the pricing on the proposal seems to be uniform at $25K pcm for each engineer. link


Number	495
Title	The Sónar+D DAO by Polkadot
Proponent	GUZZU
Amount	41’242.84 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @GUZZU, I’m a fan of electronic music and have attended Sónar Istanbul in the past. Sónar is one of the most important electronic music festivals, and it would be very exciting to see development related to Sónar on Polkadot. Music business is notoriously inefficient, I know it first-hand as a once-full-time producer and musician, and web3 could play a crucial role in improving the industry. So, I find your proposal very exciting and relevant. Yet, I think you should restructure your proposal in milestones instead of asking for a lump sum for 3 years of activity. Your first proposal’s outcome and the outlook of this one show that you need to build up trust. Start with smaller milestones, and work with both Sónar and Polkadot communities to develop and demonstrate smaller sections of your idea. This way, you can prove to the community that you’re able to deliver on smaller budgets, and build trust up from there. I’m voting against this proposal, but looking forward to a more efficient proposal that works in much smaller initial milestones. Most of us build for free when we start out, just out of necessity or curiosity or for the love of it. Community is going to support you if you earn trust first. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	497
Title	Bounty Proposal: Business Development Polkadot in Spain & Andorra - VOTE NAY
Proponent	Albert - I Love Cripto
Amount	-
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT


Number	499
Title	Swissborg Proposal - A One Month Polkadot Awareness Campaign
Proponent	TheSussexTrader
Amount	30’000 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @TheSussexTrader, I would rather see DOT holders incentivized to stake natively on the network than hold it on your app, this way maybe they would make more than what you would offer as part of your proposed program. I’m not really sure your proposal offers a benefit to the network. Plus, you’re probably going to stake the user funds, or utilize them some other way, which would generate profits anyway, so why are you asking for treasury funds on top? Also I don’t really understand why the Polkadot treasury should pay a centralized exchange for such a promotion. This proposal is against what I stand for at a number of levels. I’m voting against. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link

Medium Spender Referenda 500 - 549


Number	500
Title	Unified Wallet And Dapp Interaction
Proponent	Andy \| Beacon
Amount	44’032 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @Andy \| Beacon, Thanks for the proposal. Going through the comments, I cannot seem to justify 44K DOT (~$440K as of today) funding for your project. I think a better path for you would be get involved with the ecosystem and build PoC(s) for your project at much smaller budgets. Also in section 4.2.1.1 of your proposal you seem to be asking for $220 per developer hour ($179520/((40+8+15+15+15+9)8) assuming 8-hour work days), which I think is very expensive considering the fact that the common developer rate is usually around $100 per hour in the ecosystem. I’m voting against* this proposal due to the above reasons. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	502
Title	Treasury Proposal: Futarchy, a New Signal Generating Tech for Polkadot Governance
Proponent	Zeitgeist
Amount	93’962.490651 DOT
Vote	No Vote
Comments	Hello @Zeitgeist, Content of the proposal aside, Zeitgeist has been around for quite some time now, it has its own token, treasury and community. I’m having a hard time to understand why Zeitgeist still doesn’t have the resources to support its development, and why the Polkadot treasury should fund the development on a single chain. I think I would happily support a bounty that funds the development of multi-chain support for Zeitgeist’s assets and functionality, as @morkeltry also points out. I’m abstaining for now, closer to nay, but like said, I would be very happy to see this proposal in bounty format as a multi-chain effort. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	503
Title	Milestone 1: EasyA x Polkadot Developer Growth via In-Person Hackathons and Crash Courses (#180DaysOfPolkadot)
Proponent	EasyA
Amount	52’090.67 DOT
Vote	No Vote
Comments	-


Number	506
Title	Proposal: Decentralized Business Development for Polkadot
Proponent	Cim Topal \| missing-link.io
Amount	50’000 DOT
Vote	No Vote
Comments	Thanks for the proposal. I understand the importance of the subject matter, and the placement history of the company is impressive. Professional responses to the comments is another plus. Yet, the community reaction regarding referendum 414 appears to be on the negative side. I would also favor a more controlled release of the funds, possibly through a bounty, as suggested by Jimi. I abstain. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	508
Title	Polkadot sponsorship for LIFT Learning - A Fenasbac + Central Bank of Brazil initiative
Proponent	LUI5DOT
Amount	11’275 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	I support the proposal because of the interesting use case and the actors involved, and it’s not a substantial ask for a work of 12 months which could potentially have good impact. Yet I would’ve liked to see more technical details on the interoperability/bridge PoC that is to be implemented. I’m hoping that the team keeps W3F engaged throughout the program, and provides the community with updates. Your promise to return any excess caused by the price rise also contributes to your accountability. Good luck, kukabi


Number	509
Title	Approval of curators for Bounty 39 (BD bounty)
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	510
Title	Approval of curators for Bounty 38 (Games bounty)
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	No Vote
Comments	-


Number	515
Title	Marketing Bounty Flex [#41] - VOTE NAY
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	518
Title	Parachain Runtime Builder - Treasury
Proponent	Nikola Mandic \| MVP Workshop
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @MandicN, Thanks for the proposal. As far as I understand, Substrate Starter Kit is your product, and it’s completely out of order at the moment. I don’t find it sincere, or let’s say I find it “too professional”, when a software shop is comfortable with a decaying product that remains online, just because they’re not receiving immediate funding for it, or some other reason. You could’ve kept it up-to-date and running and ask for funds retroactively, or you could even ask for a maintenance budget. I remember the release of this product, it got some of the community excited. So you guys abandoning the project is bad track record in my humble opinion. Secondly, I don’t quite understand why a rewrite of the web application in Rust is necessary. I’m a Rust, Typescript, Swift (iOS) and Kotlin (Android) developer (github.com/kukabi), and I wouldn’t recommend developing web applications in Rust at all. I can’t find the justification in the proposal either, it only states that it’s better for performance, which is true for systems programming, but how much does it really improve the performance of the backend of a web application? Rust is just great for systems programming, yes, but Typescript does just great with web applications. Plus, you have the Substrate JS API if you remain Typescript, which could help if you wanted to read metadata and do chain state queries etc. I find the Rust rewrite unnecessary. For these reasons I reject the proposal. It’s a cool and potentially impactful project but I’m not satisfied with the proposal as it is now, a revision could get my support. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	525
Title	Polkadot marketing proposal in Chinese speaking areas
Proponent	Odaily
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @Odaily, Thank you for your proposal. As I stated in my comment on referendum 492, I believe that the activity in the region (currently referenda 492, 525 and 549) should be covered by an Asian bounty with trusted curators from both Eastern and Western communities on board. Such a bounty and curator board would help better connect the communities and provide a better system for checks and balances. Best regards, kutsal \| Helikon link


Number	526
Title	Bounty proposal: Business Development Polkadot in Spain & Andorra
Proponent	Albert - I Love Cripto
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Hi @Albert - I Love Cripto, Thanks for the proposal. Month #4 of your proposal aims to “assist clients in the initial integration process within the Polkadot environment,” and “provide technical support and resources for a smooth transition,” yet it’s not clear how you’re going to transfer knowledge to and train the existing development teams of your target companies. You don’t seem to have the technical personnel to carry it out. Polkadot SDK development requires deep understanding and experience, and it’s not a simple task for existing companies to make the shift. It’s going to be especially hard with large corporate bodies, where development teams and leadship tend to resist change, even in existing processes. I find the proposal professionally prepared, and I got the impression that the team is on top of the content of the proposal. Yet it seems to me that you’re going to have difficulty setting up the technical team to train the target companies’ development teams. You’re probably going to try to fill in the gaps in contact with the parachain teams, but most of them are going to be very busy building up their own solutions. I also have to add that I find the 6-months duration unrealistic for a task of such size. Therefore I abstain, because I think the team would still be able to achieve positive results, albeit not as great as the initial targets. I’m going to review the proposal later to see if you have updates regarding the issues mentioned above. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	532
Title	Bounty Proposal: [Spanish content and event production bounty]
Proponent	SPANISH BOUNTY V2
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, Thanks for the proposal. I fully understand the importance of this proposal and the good intentions of the proponents, yet I reject it for the following reasons. There is no RoI (return on investment) analysis for the $330K spent so far as part of the first bounty. Proposal contains plain numbers (content count, views, etc.), but a RoI analysis requires more than this to measure the impact. How many new active accounts do you think you onboarded? How many new developers/teams building on Polkadot from the Spanish-speaking world due to your activity? What is the social impact of your activity so far? Do we have more Polkadot searches in the area? When you include such analysis, it signals that you are actually tracking the outcome of your activity, and not only focused on making the content available, which means very little on its own. There is no content/events strategy. It seems like you focused on the quantity of the content/events and the code of conducts and management methods, but I don’t think you’d be able to utilize the funds in an efficient manner if you don’t have a very well laid-out content and events strategy. What areas of Polkadot are you going to focus? Polkadot SDK? Philosophical background? Parachains? DeFi? Agile coretime? Governance? What’s the timeframe like, ie how is your content strategy going to unfold over time? How is your content strategy related to your events strategy? What content/topics for which months/weeks into the bounty, and why? For what tangible outcome? Are there ways to make your content culturally relevant to the narrative of the targeted countries? As there’s no true RoI analysis of the first bounty, there’s no solid RoI proposal for the second bounty. And in my opinion you cannot really propose solid RoI without a solid content strategy. I believe in the good intentions of the proponents, but I don’t find the proposal sophisticated enough to be worthy of the asked amount of ~$500K USD at today’s rate. You’d still be able to deliver work without all these, but why not take your work and your audience way more seriously and make a much bigger impact? Such a proposal would have my complete support. Thanks, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	534
Title	NOTE - Vote Nay [Incorrect Preimage]
Proponent	William \| Paraverse Talisman
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	535
Title	Inscriptions generator and marketplace (tender offer)
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Inscriptions (NFTs, basically) already exist in the ecosystem. Ordinals are interesting, but I’m not sure if it would catch the attention of the community. Even if it did, I would rather see it as a project of bottom-up growth that starts very small in the hands of a few talented and curious people. No serious budget needed for such work, just a few driven people’s time to develop the first working version. Pretty much all great things start out this way. Then we can think about funding. Best, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	536
Title	Polkadot Asia Developer Community Expansion for 1 Year Operation
Proponent	OneBlock
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @oneblock., I’m rejecting the proposal due to wrong amount submitted in Plancks rather than DOT. Yet, as I stated in my comment on referendum 492, I believe that the activity in the region (currently referenda 492, 525 and 549) should be covered by an Asian bounty with trusted curators from both Eastern and Western communities on board. Such a bounty and curator board would help better connect the communities and provide a better system for checks and balances. Best regards, kutsal \| Helikon link


Number	539
Title	Polkadot Asia Developer Community Expansion for 1 Year Operation
Proponent	OneBlock
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @oneblock., Thank you for your proposal. As I stated in my comment on referendum 492, I believe that the activity in the region (currently referenda 492, 525 and 549) should be covered by an Asian bounty with trusted curators from both Eastern and Western communities on board. Such a bounty and curator board would help better connect the communities and provide a better system for checks and balances. Best regards, kutsal \| Helikon link


Number	540
Title	POLKADOT <> KUSAMA BRIDGE SECURITY BOUNTY
Proponent	VinceCorsica
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @VinceCorsica_KSM, I support the proposal and am fully aware of its importance, and the documentation is commendable in that it’s detailed and well laid-out, yet I abstain due to lack of the background and identity (albeit online) of the proponent, and the list of possible curators. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link Thanks for all the information @VinceCorsica_KSM, I changed my vote to aye. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	542
Title	OpenGov Discord Voting Bot Development
Proponent	N4DRO
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	The active use of the bot by ChaosDAO and KusDAO serves as a proven track record. Budgeting is reasonable. Source code is looking clean. You could even consider separating textual content from the source code to make it multi-language for future users. I support the proposal. I hope it gets adopted by additional DAOs and individuals. Please keep it open source forever. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	544
Title	Talisman Unified Retroactive Proposal #2
Proponent	William \| Paraverse Talisman
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	I support the proposal because, Talisman is an important development team in the ecosystem, I especially like their approach to visuals and interaction. They should be supported just as much as the other productive wallet teams such as Nova, SubWallet and Fearless. Yet, with this proposal passing, we’re going to have at least 4 wallet projects that received over $1MM each (correct me if I’m wrong), and I definitely think that the treasury-funded wallets should find ways to self-sustain themselves through fees, pools, validators, parachain treasuries, and other possible means. Extend beyond Polkadot if necessary. This is much probably the last wallet proposal I’m ever going to support. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	547
Title	Replaced by Proposal #551 Amharic Chain Polkadot Academy to Small Spender Track
Proponent	Menilik
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	548
Title	[VOTE NAY] DED Token birthing phase: “EDs” and technical proposal \| On-Demand Governance for Assets on Asset Hub.
Proponent	DED Tech Midwife
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	549
Title	SHITTY PROPOSAL SORRY
Proponent	DOTins
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-

Medium Spender Referenda 550 - 599


Number	550
Title	PolkaMAPS, a DOTins project
Proponent	DOTins
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @DOTins, Thank you for the proposal. The concept of ordinals and inscriptions on Bitcoin, as far as I know, was invented by Casey Rodarmor to enable the creation of unique digital assets on the Bitcoin blockchain. Ordinals, as you may know, are uniquely identifiable satoshis (the smallest unit of Bitcoin, similar to planck on Polkadot), and inscriptions are just arbitrary digital data attached to these unique satoshis. Rodarmor’s ordinal theory is available here if anyone is interested. Now, if we get back to Polkadot, inscriptions, which we could safely call arbitrary on-chain data (to be honest I don’t even know why we’re using the Bitcoin term inscriptions, it’s remarks on Polkadot), have been available on Polkadot since the genesis, through the remark extrinsic. So we’ve always had this primitive way of representing arbitrary digital data/assets on-chain. On top of that, we have Asset Hub chains, and we also have at least one parachain team who have been working with NFTs as core components, and parachains that support EVM contracts, which enable advanced NFT and trading contract functionalities. An ordinals implementation at planck-level could be an interesting technical challenge on Polkadot, but your proposal doesn’t seem to offer that. It’s a vague proposal that, from what I understand, basically offers to initiate an NFT (call it inscriptions, digital assets, etc.) project based on Polkadot and its parachains’ existing on-chain storage capabilities. While I can see that there could be community activity around this idea, and I agree that the cross-chain possibilities could bring about extra excitement, I don’t find this proposal interesting or promising enough to justify the ~$350K budget requested. To make it clearer, I would consider this project with a budget in the range of $50K-$100K. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	554
Title	Polkadot Pulse Dubai Edition & Networking Night @ Token2049, Dubai
Proponent	Polkadot Now India
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, I think the events bounty, which still seem to have a balance of 171K DOT, should be utilized for this event, and any issues causing inefficiencies should be fixed within the bounty. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	555
Title	{bash} Events (the PMEI team) - a music and technology sandbox \| onboarding users into Polkadot through music
Proponent	Polkadot Music Events Initiative
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @PMEI, Thanks for the proposal and your successful work so far. Please consider utilizing the events bounty for it, even if on a per-event basis. Its remaining budget seems suitable, and from your proposal it seems that you have experience working with the bounty. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	556
Title	DED Bounty
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	(I’m copying my comment from Subsquare dated 8th of March ’24 because it’s not bridged.) I’m nay’ing this proposal in favor of private investor funding. Yet, when you’re presenting a proposal such as this one, you owe the community clarity on the details. Who decides which private investor is going to be picked? Who’s going to carry out the negotiations? Who’s going to oversee the investment process? By “some tokens”, how much do you imply? For all of these decisions, we’re likely going to require additional referenda, because the treasury has already invested a million USD in this effort. So I’m going nay for the lack of a “we need more details” option. This proposal is incomplete for what it is now. To close with, I would approve the option of private investor funding under the condition of complete transparency of the process details. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	557
Title	BD Bounty (retry)
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	I believe more detailed background information on curator candidates would have suited a bounty of this size better. Yet, the bounty has passed and I would like to see the outcome with the structure proposed by the bounty leadership. I vote in favor. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	558
Title	Games Bounty (retry)
Proponent	giottodf
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	A more crowded and diverse list of curators compared the business development bounty is great. I vote in favor yet I believe that the bounty deserves a more professional presentation of the candidates. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	565
Title	Please vote to reject! The preimages hash is incorrect.
Proponent	polkaworld
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, your preimage (`0xc88d...1cf7`) doesn’t exist on chain. Please submit it, or repost the referendum. I’m rejecting it until it’s fixed. kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	572
Title	Please vote to reject! The preimages hash is incorrect
Proponent	polkaworld
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	577
Title	Increase Awareness of Polkadot On-Brand Messages via Twitter Ads (5/1/24-8/31/24)
Proponent	Colorful Notion
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @sourabhniyogi, Thanks for the proposal. I’m rejecting the proposal for a number of reasons: I think you have a proposal whose delivery is ongoing, the Dune integration proposal, correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t find it fair for a single individual/team to have multiple active proposals, and this applies to all teams/individuals. Marketing should be done by marketing professionals. So if you find this work beneficial the best move imo would be to find the eligible marketing people, let them know about any problems you identify, let them know about the proposal process, and leave the rest to them, possibly with a reference by yourself included. I’m not comfortable with pouring that much money straight into Twitter. I think talented market people should be able to come up with better and more creative utilization of the budget for better impact. You can apply to the marketing bounty to cover this expense. I think the bounty curators should be able to judge whether it’s necessary. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link

Big Spender

Big Spender track allows spendings up to 1’000’000 DOT from the treasury.

Votes Summary


Number of Proposals Voted	10
Erroneous Proposals	1
Valid Proposals	9
Aye	3
Naye	3
Abstain	3

Votes

Big Spender Referenda 450 - 499


Number	477
Title	Polkadot Decoded 2024 treasury spend tranche 1/2
Proponent	decentered.jeoric
Amount	184’235.82 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello @decentered.jeoric, I attended last year’s Decoded and I was happy with the event overall (catering could be better), yet I agree with the rest of the comments that more granular line items and offers from alternative providers should be presented. Otherwise the voters do not have enough data to make a decision on. I’m voting in favor, but also looking forward to the transparency report. Best regards kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	482
Title	DeFi Infrastructure & Tooling Bounty
Proponent	VelocityLabs
Amount	592’972.973774 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi, Thanks for the detailed proposal. I have confidence that the listed members of the teams are going to ensure a successful management and delivery. Voting in favor. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	483
Title	Polkassembly Social Contract 2024
Proponent	Polkassembly
Amount	172’066.93 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hi @Polkassembly, Although it’s clear that Polkassembly plays a crucial role in OpenGov alongside Subsquare, I believe the budget requested is excessive. I don’t understand why you should be charging extra for the new features when you already have a crowded personnel listed solely for maintenance. Furthermore, I’m noticing a trend of escalating costs with each proposal from Polkassembly, a point highlighted by ChaosDAO. Moreover, I don’t understand why the treasury should be funding your travel and accommodation costs for the events. My vote is nay, with the primary concern that Polkassembly’s expenses are becoming increasingly heavy on the treasury. I would vote in favor of a proposal with a more modest and reasonable budget and a shorter duration. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link

Big Spender Referenda 500 - 549


Number	507
Title	Polkadot Community Workspace NYC by Transistor
Proponent	Transistor
Amount	310’930 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	Hello Transistor, Thanks for the proposal. I’m rejecting it for a single reason: the duration of the funding. Funding should be initially for single-year only. I understand that you have to make a 3-year lease, and the 3-year lease you found is an advantageous one in the area, but I reject the idea that the treasury should take the risk of all these 3 years on behalf of you guys. What I would support? Treasury funds you for a year (plus the security deposit, possibly), you present your work to the community at the end of the year, and the community funds you for an additional year if your work so far justifies the investment. If you’re too successful, why not fund you for an additional 2 years? This way, should you fail to deliver at the end of the first year, the treasury has lost the investment for the first year, and you’re left with 2 more years of the lease on your lap. This is the right way to incentivize this funding. Otherwise your stakes is next to zero. Complete risk shouldn’t be on the shoulders of the treasury, ie the community, share it if you have so much confidence in your project. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	514
Title	Conor Daly - 2024 Indianapolis 500 Sponsorship
Proponent	ConorDaly22
Amount	290’000 DOT
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Thanks for the proposal. First, I find this type of advertisement old-fashioned and vain (reminds me of Larry Ellison style for some reason). Second, I believe in grassroots and crypto-native acts, and honestly I find it awkward that there’s absolutely zero mention of Polkadot on your social media, and even your proposal lacks any reference to it, which is actually enough reason for me to reject the proposal. However I can see the excitement of many valuable peers, so I abstain. Good luck, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	528
Title	Error - Vote NAY
Proponent	giottodf
Amount	0.000025 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	-


Number	529
Title	Refill for marketing bounty number #33 [250k]
Proponent	giottodf
Amount	250’000 DOT
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Hi @giotto, I tried to go through the delivery reports so far in different formats from different parties, but I don’t know how to evaluate this output. I cannot find structure or strategy that would guide me in evaluation, but I think the method here is to not have structure. So, I don’t have the tools to evaluate the outcome here. One thing I can suggest is to finance a team of specialized auditors. The material is too scattered and too much for any single community member to deal with, and it’s going to be increasingly so later. I can’t make a rational decision here. I abstain. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link

Big Spender Referenda 550 - 599


Number	552
Title	Token Terminal x Polkadot data partnership - Polkadot ecosystem on Token Terminal and their partner platforms (Bloomberg, MarketVector)
Proponent	Parity Data
Amount	171’827 DOT
Vote	🟢 Aye @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	It’s a valuable partnership to increase Polkadot’s reach especially in the institutional sphere, and I have full confidence in Parity Data’s experience and capability to successfully carry out the partnership. So I support the proposal, but with a few points. I get the impression especially from the Q&A section (Q14) that Token Terminal will have productized the outcome of this proposal (terminal content and Data Room) by the end of the initial maintenance period. I believe the proposal could negotiate free perpetual access to Polkadot parachain development teams. Otherwise Polkadot would be paying for a product whose development it financed itself. I find the integration period of 4 months too short, but I hope the teams can manage to deliver. It’s not very clear what scope of the chain data is going to be indexed into the Data Room. If it is only raw block content, I’m not sure how much advantage it provides over just running an API sidecar instance on top of an archive node. In my opinion what makes a difference here is the synthesis of relational data. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link


Number	553
Title	Paseo Testnet - Curator submission
Proponent	Birdo 🐥
Vote	⚪ Abstain
Comments	Hi, I have to abstain due to my IBP membership and DV delegation. Good luck! kukabi \| Helikon<br/ link


Number	556
Title	DED Bounty
Proponent	giottodf
Amount	1’000’000 DOT
Vote	🔴 Nay @ 6.01M DOT
Comments	I’m nay’ing this proposal in favor of private investor funding. Yet, when you’re presenting a proposal such as this one, you owe the community clarity on the details. Who decides which private investor is going to be picked? Who’s going to carry out the negotiations? Who’s going to oversee the investment process? By “some tokens”, how much do you imply? For all of these decisions, we’re likely going to require additional referenda, because the treasury has already invested a million USD in this effort. So I’m going nay for the lack of a “we need more details” option. This proposal is incomplete for what it is now. To close with, I would approve the option of private investor funding under the condition of complete transparency of the process details. Best regards, kukabi \| Helikon link