Introduction

As a newcomer to Polkadot OpenGov, I've been impressed by its transparent nature and have been actively following discussions on important referenda. Through this
observation, I've identified what I believe to be a structural issue affecting governance efficiency.

Problem Statement

Current Observation

I've noticed that referenda requesting substantial funding often receive votes from large stakeholders (individuals and DAOs) wielding over 1 million DOT in
voting power. However, many of these influential votes are cast without any accompanying rationale or feedback.

Impact of This Issue

This lack of transparency creates several problems:

• Proposers lack actionable feedback – Teams whose proposals are rejected don't understand the reasoning behind large "Nay" votes, making it difficult to
  improve future submissions
• Governance stagnation – Without clear feedback loops, the same issues are re-proposed multiple times rather than being refined through focused discussion
• Forum clutter – Multiple versions of similar proposals accumulate, making it harder to track meaningful discourse
• Reduced transparency – The community loses valuable insights into the decision-making process of major stakeholders

Proposed Solution

Require voters casting more than 1 million DOT to provide a brief comment explaining their voting decision.

Expected Benefits

• ✅ Improved feedback loops – Proposers receive concrete input for iteration
• ✅ Accelerated decision-making – Clear communication reduces back-and-forth cycles
• ✅ Enhanced transparency – Community gains insight into major stakeholder priorities
• ✅ Reduced forum noise – Fewer redundant proposals, more focused discussions
• ✅ Knowledge sharing – Smaller token holders benefit from the reasoning of experienced participants

Implementation Considerations

I acknowledge that not every voter may wish to provide detailed commentary. However, for votes that significantly influence outcomes, a brief explanation (even
1-2 sentences) would substantially improve the governance process.

Questions for discussion:

• What should be the minimum threshold for mandatory comments? (1M DOT, higher, lower?)
• Should this apply to all tracks, or only treasury/spending tracks?
• How would this be technically enforced?
• What happens if a large voter refuses to comment?

Conclusion

By fostering clearer communication from influential voters, we can create a more efficient, transparent, and collaborative governance environment that benefits
both proposers and the broader Polkadot community.

I welcome feedback from the community on this proposal and look forward to discussing potential improvements or concerns.