Everyone is already fully aware of the debacle around the program, so this proposal will be kept short and to the point.
<h2 id="brieftimeline">Brief timeline</h2>
<ol>
<li>A program was created that:
<ol>
<li>Promised independence of a collective structure</li>
<li>Payout salary as incentive for people to be fully committed</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>The program passed, but without a salary enactment to go along with it</li>
<li>People wanted to alter the program after the fact, resulting in point 2 never becoming a thing</li>
<li>Three months in, we have:
<ol>
<li>People working without compensation</li>
<li>Up to half of the collective tried to oust the rest</li>
<li>The entire program now risks getting wiped entirely</li>
<li>The community more fragmented than ever</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="proposedsolution">Proposed solution</h2>
To move forward with the program and just do it.
<h2 id="concernanswer">Concern &amp; answer</h2>
C: $120,000 per year is too high of a salary
A: This is a competitive but in no way an unreasonably high salary. Fixating on rate is the wrong mentality and a sure way to hold back potential growth. We want to attract and retain top-tier, highly motivated talent, not mediocrely rated people that will deliver mediocre results.
C: Merit &amp; proof is needed before getting paid, passion will fuel them before that
A: Quite frankly an insulting take. There's no passion to speak of when treating people like slave-labour ready interns. I myself would quit on the spot upon hearing this from any potential employment.
C: People have other jobs &amp; HA should be a full-time position
A: HA should be a full-time position, but we can't expect them to blindly trust and take the plunge with everything that has happened so far. Guarantee of incentives needs to happen first.
C: XYZ is a grifter and needs to be eliminated
A: Let&rsquo;s entertain this idea for a bit and suppose that there are "grifters". This needs to be dealt with discreetly, in an isolated manner. What we do not need is any sort of heavy-handed scorched-earth tactic that will hurt and turn away everyone, including people that can and will drive Polkadot forward. Which is magnitudes worse than driving away a couple of maybe grifters.
C: The program needs to be reset, spending needs revaluation &amp; more governmental structure is required, etc
A: What IS NEEDED is for DOT to go to +$100, and to get there we need actions, performed by people! All of this pivoting &amp; constant virtue signalling needs to stop. These are talented and self-respecting individuals, not guinea pigs to be experimented on, nor do we want to attract/promote such people, which will happen if the program is reset.
<h2 id="requestedamount">Requested Amount</h2>
840,000 USDT
This amount provides 4 months of runway: 3 months to implement the 100-day plan and an additional 1-month buffer for potential refill ref if the program proves to be successful.

Everyone is already fully aware of the debacle around the program, so this proposal will be kept short and to the point.

Brief timeline
--------------

1.  A program was created that:
    1.  Promised independence of a collective structure
    2.  Payout salary as incentive for people to be fully committed
2.  The program passed, but without a salary enactment to go along with it
3.  People wanted to alter the program after the fact, resulting in point 2 never becoming a thing
4.  Three months in, we have:
    1.  People working without compensation
    2.  Up to half of the collective tried to oust the rest
    3.  The entire program now risks getting wiped entirely
    4.  The community more fragmented than ever

Proposed solution
-----------------

To move forward with the program and **just do it**.

Concern & answer
----------------

**C: $120,000 per year is too high of a salary**

**A:** This is a competitive but in no way an unreasonably high salary. Fixating on rate is the wrong mentality and a sure way to hold back potential growth. We want to attract and retain top-tier, highly motivated talent, not mediocrely rated people that will deliver mediocre results.

**C: Merit & proof is needed before getting paid, passion will fuel them before that**

**A:** Quite frankly an insulting take. There's no passion to speak of when treating people like slave-labour ready interns. I myself would quit on the spot upon hearing this from any potential employment.

**C: People have other jobs & HA should be a full-time position**

**A:** HA **should** be a full-time position, but we can't expect them to blindly trust and take the plunge with everything that has happened so far. Guarantee of incentives needs to happen first.

**C: XYZ is a grifter and needs to be eliminated**

**A:** Let’s entertain this idea for a bit and suppose that there are "grifters". This needs to be dealt with discreetly, in an isolated manner. What we do not need is any sort of heavy-handed scorched-earth tactic that will hurt and turn away everyone, including people that can and will drive Polkadot forward. Which is magnitudes worse than driving away a couple of _maybe_ grifters.

**C: The program needs to be reset, spending needs revaluation & more governmental structure is required, etc**

**A:** What **IS NEEDED** is for DOT to go to +$100, and to get there we need actions, performed by people! All of this pivoting & constant virtue signalling needs to stop. These are talented and self-respecting individuals, not guinea pigs to be experimented on, nor do we want to attract/promote such people, which will happen if the program is reset.

Requested Amount
----------------

**840,000 USDT**

This amount provides 4 months of runway: 3 months to implement the 100-day plan and an additional 1-month buffer for potential refill ref if the program proves to be successful.

Propose and approve a spend of treasury funds.

## Dispatch Origin

Must be [`Config::SpendOrigin`] with the `Success` value being at least
`amount` of `asset_kind` in the native asset. The amount of `asset_kind` is converted
for assertion using the [`Config::BalanceConverter`].

## Details

Create an approved spend for transferring a specific `amount` of `asset_kind` to a
designated beneficiary. The spend must be claimed using the `payout` dispatchable within
the [`Config::PayoutPeriod`].

### Parameters
- `asset_kind`: An indicator of the specific asset class to be spent.
- `amount`: The amount to be transferred from the treasury to the `beneficiary`.
- `beneficiary`: The beneficiary of the spend.
- `valid_from`: The block number from which the spend can be claimed. It can refer to
  the past if the resulting spend has not yet expired according to the
  [`Config::PayoutPeriod`]. If `None`, the spend can be claimed immediately after
  approval.

## Events

Emits [`Event::AssetSpendApproved`] if successful.

- **Problem Statement:** Lack of salary enactment in a program leading to people working without compensation, causing community fragmentation.
- **Significance:** Risk of program failure, potential ousting of members, and community disintegration.
- **Proposed Solution:** Implement the program with a competitive salary to attract and retain top-tier talent.
- **Expected Outcomes:** Requested amount of 840,000 USDT to provide 4 months of runway for program implementation and potential success.

#1205 Funding the Ambassador Program

No Active Proposals