Medium Spender Referenda 550 - 599
| Number | 550 |
| Title | PolkaMAPS, a DOTins project |
| Proponent | DOTins |
| Vote | đź”´ 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 | đź”´ 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 | đź”´ 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 | đź”´ 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 | đź”´ 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 | đź”´ 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 | đź”´ Nay @ 6.01M DOT |
| Comments | Hi @sourabhniyogi, Thanks for the proposal. I’m rejecting the proposal for a number of reasons:
kukabi | Helikon link |