Close Bounty 46 – AMI Bounty Program
a year ago
Executed
Due to the discussion across the ecosystem regarding marketing, this referendum aims to bring attention to Bounty 46. This bounty has realistically done nothing except pay its curators. This referendum aims to highlight this issue.
Comments (13)
Proposal Passed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (48)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (25)0.0 DOT
The AMI Bounty surely doesnt runs perfectly yet, however it is simply false to say that they did nothing. One fact that there is so much bad blood on the AMI Bounty comes from the fact that they operate insanely transparent and they shouldn't be slashed for being that open with their operations. From recent talks, e.g on AAG we are able to gain a better understanding, learning that there has been quite some work done to setup an improved bounty management strucutre and to move the bounty towards effective operation (which is lacking generally at most Bounties), therefore voting NAY on closing the bounty. Lets give the folks the time they need to further progress, they have proven to be open and transparent in their work and to effectively improve over time.
Hello everybody, I am Bob and I have been one of the curators on this bounty for the last ~month (not a part of the original curator set). The AMI bounty has been receiving a lot of attention after the creation of this referenda and there has been a lot of uninformed assumptions that have translated to public discourse. I love public discourse. :) I am humbly volunteering to answer any questions or concerns that anybody may have about details regarding the AMI bounty as they consider how to vote on this referenda. I feel the need to note that I will be doing this as an individual. I am not here as an official mouthpiece for the entire curator set of the AMI bounty, but as a single curator that is a part of that set. However, I can confidently say that the AMI bounty as a whole is committed to transparency and welcomes any questions or feedback that the community may have. Please feel free to reply to this post with any questions or concerns that you have. I will answer to the best of my ability.
@reallythough
Thanks.
I wish more of the curators were more forthcoming. But I guess we never specified that we would expect them to justify the contentious spending, so why would they be?
Anyway, questions:
Is there any document that, for a given request for funds, specifies how to decide whether the request should be granted or not? (And if so, what community input is there into it?)
What effect on Polkadot is marketing intended to have?
(eg, '50 new accounts created' is an 'effect'. '50k views on Twitter/ YouTube' is a tautology).
Are these intended effects written down anywhere?
How are the effects, both of individual marketing spends and of the whole marketing spend, measured against these goals? Is it even possible to measure actual effects and if not, why do we believe they exist and are worth spending the amount we do on them?
Is there any evidence that can be imagined (so not real evidence, but just a hypothetical) that would be sufficient for curators to conclude that the marketing efforts (whether in general, or a particular spend) had failed?
Most crypto marketing is either by large entities and paid in fiat from fiat revenues or reserves, or else by small entities, usually paid in token. Where paid in token, there is often a lock-up period. Especially when paid to influencers. This prevents sell pressure on the token right at the time the marketing is intended to have effect. Additionally with influencers, it (at least temporarily) aligns the influencer's interest, ensuring coverage is persuasive and not merely incidental. I introduce all that long background to ask-
Does Polkadot marketing employ any mechanisms either to negate or mitigate the sell pressure effect of its spend, or to align influencer's interests with ours?
Is the marketing burn rate set strategically within an overall treasury spend burn rate, and over what timescale (and what amount)? What happens after this timescale?
How do the various marketing initiatives intend to engage meaningfully (ie to serve, rather than just consult) the community?
Apologies if this is a little longer than you were expecting :/
These are direct questions, though, so I hope you will be able to individually answer what each question directly asks :)