Principles in Action: Helikon Polkadot Governance Archive

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