Easiest AYE ever

Also, F that grifter. Wen ref to set Michiko's balance to ZERO for perpetrating fraud against our community? 😂

Questions:

1- Is this not as ridiculous as me ask for a tip from the Kusama Treasury that would cover identifying the problem in that the proponent of this referenda https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/434#35b91125-c5f5-4b34-a537-14d465c7d9e1 had accidentally asked for $14,913.65 USD more than they should have through diligently reviewing their proposal and potentially exposing myself to reputational damage if my challenge was wrong? If I did not carry out my job as a DV diligently then the Kusama Treasury may not have realised that they were incorrectly overpaying for reimbursements, potentially by $14,913.65 USD every few months.

2- Is this not more ridiculous than me submitting a referenda or asking for a 500 DOT tip from the Polkadot Treasury to refund me the 500 DOT of remuneration that I had rightfully previously earned from the Polkadot Treasury through justified tasks that were entered into timesheets and that was within the agreed budget that was approved by Polkadot OpenGov? It was returned due to false rumours and accusations that were circulating associated with spending funds badly and mismanagement, as highlighted at 1:41:40 by Max is this AAG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDiS6Frf3kk?

3- Would you be willing to complete and sign a Statutory Declaration or a statement made under oath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_declaration similar to https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/nsw-statutory-declaration-forms that is a legally binding document that makes the matters known formally and publicly that you were not at all involved with Michiko Watanabe and have no knowledge of who was involved, to serve as a form of proof?

4- I certainly do not at all mean to imply that you were involved in it at all, but if this tip gets approved, and it was not possible to provide any evidence other than your Statutory Declaration or a statement made under oath to prove that you had no involvement in it, could that risk setting a precedent that might encourage malicious actors to collude with corrupt opportunists that may even be trusted in the ecosystem and arrange similar supposed scams to that of Michiko where there could be multiple ways that they could profit from it (e.g. colluders getting away with HA payments, or getting a tip for exposing it)?

Note that a slightly similar analogy could be of salaried fire fighters being exposed to a form of climate change where there was actually pattern of less fires occurring to justify their role and salary. They could stoop so low as to fall for the temptation of colluding with anonymous arsonists to start fires that would give them ongoing work to justify their role and salary, or to get tips, gifts or accolades from the public, and split the rewards with the anonymous arsonists.

5- Could you please kindly provide a detailed timesheet of hours that were involved in the what this "tip covers" part of your proposal, that avoids any of the labelling issues that were identified by Max in AAG recently between 1:41:40 and 1:42:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDiS6Frf3kk to ensure this tip doesn't also cause rumours to spread of Polkadot funds been spent badly on tips due to OpenGov mismanagement?

6- How would this tip compare to a software bug bounties like this https://www.theblock.co/post/199718/immunefi-researcher-saves-200-million-from-potential-theft-on-three-polkadot-parachains, where a security researcher was awarded a $1 million bounty (0.5% of the funds that could have potentially been stolen) for discovering a software vulnerability that could have been exploited to steal as much as $200 million?

7- How many months do you honestly believe the scammer could have gotten away with being paid $10,000 per month from the Polkadot Treasury if they had used a body double of the AI-generated Michiko and you had not intervened?

8- Do you believe they could have maintained a Head Ambassador (HA) role earning $10,000 per month for as long as 20 months, stealing as much as $200,000? If so, is that the reason why you have proposed a tip request of $1,000 (0.5% of the funds that could have potentially been stolen)?

9- What list of bureaucratic rules, regulations, and frameworks would you support introducing as a Head Ambassador (HA) to empower other Polkadot Ambassadors and agents by providing them with some level of "structure" to help them build tools to support them in offering proactive "preventative" protection of the Polkadot Ambassador Program to minimise the risk of relying solely on "reactive" measures performed by tip and bounty hunters, incase they are overlooked?

10- What metrics and thresholds would you use identify whether the list of bureaucratic rules and regulations that you would support introducing as a Head Ambassador (HA) are "too" bureaucratic?

11- What risk assessment workshops have been conducted by the Head Ambassadors (HA) in the Polkadot Ambassador Program to date? Where is the latest risk register?

Note that someone has proposed to "close" this bounty https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1033 where even the anonymous proponent has managed to get away with a deceptive proposal "Description" that includes a false accusation, stating that the "bounty has realistically done nothing except pay its curators", which is simply not true. They shared their progress publicly and published reports, which they highlighted at the most recent AAG. They also proactively undertook an appropriate balance of due diligence and risk management.