Since a recent runtime upgrade, the Fellowship itself has had its own Treasury-management logic. That is, using the Fellowship voting tracks, the Fellowship could fund proposals directly, allowing people to request funding directly from the Fellowship rather than the public referenda tracks.

I have discussed a lot of the advantages of this approach in this forum thread, but to briefly recap, using collective-based Treasuries brings a number of advantages:

• Applicants can apply to a body of recognized experts who should be able to evaluate their proposal properly;
• The body can act much faster with its shorter (7 vs. 28 day) tracks;
• The body can be more agile with its Treasury management due to smaller size than the main Treasury, for example with converting a portion to stablecoins.

For now, the only sub-treasury is the Fellowship's but with the Ambassador Program coming on-chain now and other collectives like Tooling and EVM in the works, I only expect the number of these to grow.

The first challenge to solve, though, is actually funding a sub-treasury. In the long run, I would like to see an approach outlined in RFC-89 and this GitHub issue wherein funds are automatically allocated to these sub-treasuries when inflation is minted. But for the time being, we must fund them with direct Treasury proposals.

So the point of this discussion thread is to determine: How much?

I will start by throwing out a number/proposal and see if there is general agreement, objections, and/or arguments for a different number:

I propose funding the Fellowship Treasury with 1 million DOT and the expectation that this last at least six months.