Principles in Action: Helikon Polkadot Governance Archive

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	-