Polkadot App - PCF IP Rights & Funding for publishing the app
Beneficiary:
As many of you may know, at Polkadot Decoded this year (2024) Björn Wagner teased the new Polkadot App. This is a very exciting product which has been a long time in the making and plans to deliver an easy, beginner-friendly mobile wallet (and more) for newcomers to crypto and Polkadot.
One of the strategic aims is for the product to be owned by the community and with the launch of the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF), we want to make this a reality.
This proposal seeks to gain community support for two key items:
- The community acceptance for the PCF to own the IP and source code of the Polkadot App.
This specifically means the source code (which will be open source post launch) of the Polkadot App. - Funding ($50k) to pay Walkers for legal and administrative fees to sign up, publish and review updates to the Polkadot App over time. This includes signing the many legal agreements required (10+) to set up the Apple and Google stores and other 3rd party providers such as on/offramps, analytics tools and more. The PCF will also be required to administer these accounts to the maintainers (currently Parity/Novasama).
Full proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iwJCl8EVGIG6hHHvd7IB9XOL0o460_N24h1JRmht3Ao/edit?usp=sharing
Comments (10)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (76)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (4)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
I have some concerns regarding the bylaws related to the voting process for directors, specifically the provisions under section 3a) iii) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yrq5mAquY2pPW5ZBnl07Xt7Woj-HwGJd/edit#heading=h.1fob9te.
The clause outlines the removal of individuals or organizations from the role of Foundation Director, stipulating that the Foundation must always retain at least one (1) Foundation Director. However, it further states that Tokenholders may only remove a Non-DOT Director if the proposal to do so garners at least two-thirds of the total voting tokens cast in favour of the removal. Additionally, should one or more Non-DOT Directors be removed by the Tokenholders, the remaining Foundation Director(s) are empowered to appoint an equivalent number of replacement Foundation Director(s) **(with no stipulation of the continuous composition of Non-DOT directors and DOT-Directors **
My concern is that this language appears inefficient and allows for the potential displacement of DOT Directors without sufficient safeguards to maintain the intended 3vs2 composition. This alignment must be preserved at all times. Given that this application is intended to be fueled by the DOT ecosystem and is branded as the "Polkadot Community Foundation," I question why the bylaws are structured in such a way that could potentially sever all connections with the Polkadot community once the foundation becomes profitable and fully funded.
A super majority is always favoured toward a 2/3 vote of 5 directors, therefore at all times will the board of directors be geared toward non-dot elected directors (3) and maintain at all times a 3vs2 split giving ultimate power to disband said elected DOT Directors at their discretion.
Am I reading this wrong? Also, is there a breakdown of elected directors, shareholders, and full disclosure of all IP related directly and indirectly by said shareholders/directors and/or holding companies in that may prove an obstacle in the future e.g. making Polkadot reliant on Novasama Technologies going forward? Cheers, Steve.
Yayer - go birdo!