Big Spender Referenda 550

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