Ambassador Fellowship: Sprint Team Tip Request - Leemo
Beneficiary:During the first funded phase of the Ambassador Fellowship, we achieved remarkable success — even amidst periods of uncertainty and transition. This success was largely thanks to the dedication of individuals who stepped up as volunteers to ensure we not only met but exceeded our deliverables within the agreed timeframe.
Per the agreement with the Advisory Board (see Sprint Overview Document), a discretionary payment was to be made to the core team upon successful delivery by May 3, 2025. Through careful financial stewardship — managed solely by myself — $230,000 remained in the Ambassador Fellowship fund. The plan was to distribute $29,000 to the team, with the remaining $201,000 returned to the treasury when the Board stepped down (five weeks later than anticipated).
The delivery deadline was met, and the Advisory Board confirmed the work was completed successfully.
However, during this period, several Board members resigned due to the extended duration of their roles. With diminished capacity and activity, decision-making became increasingly difficult. Ultimately, the remaining funds — including the portion intended for the team — were returned in full to the treasury for administrative ease. As a result, the promised payments were not made.
Today, the Ambassador Fellowship remains active and is preparing a proposal for further funding to support its continued growth. Cohort Two is currently being seeded, and a waitlist for Cohort Three is already forming — a clear sign of the program's community value and continued success. You can find our Delivery Report here.
After careful consideration and consultation, I believe the fairest path forward is to submit individual compensation requests on behalf of each team member. These individuals fulfilled their commitments and contributed significantly to the Fellowship’s outcomes. The full list of team members and corresponding payment amounts can be found in this Spreadsheet.
Thank you for your continued support of the team, the principle of fairness within the ecosystem, and the enduring impact of the Ambassador Fellowship.
Comments (4)
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Small Tipper track requires 30% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received one aye and two nay votes from ten available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
I am voting NAY due to inconsistencies and lack of the full picture of the situation.
As a relatively new member of the ecosystem, over the past few months I have made an effort to understand the PAF and its evolution after the previous Ambassador Programs. The manifesto called my attention and I support its goal and the effort dedicated to it.
The publicly shared information before May 3rd was quite cryptic to me but started to become more clear after reading the links from the notion and canva and the PIF reports that were published.
Unfortunately, I still see a long way to go between the results presented and the manifesto itself.
I can see that Lucy has made big efforts to share publicly on AAG, twitter “Spaces”, AMAs, canva, notion page, etc. However, apart from the forum post of the board’s resignation it is difficult to understand what has happened between February and May 2025.
Please note that I can only analyze these refs and the situation with the PAF based on publicly available information I have read or listened to. Some of the links in the provided document are broken (correspond to deleted documents or require special access). For example: I am unable to read the “Phragmen Initiative Fund: Mid-Term Reports” as well as the “Initial Seeding” and “Initial PIF selection” documents.
Regarding inconsistencies, please allow me to ask for clarification.
The “Sprint Overview Document” linked on the proposal mentioned “Discretionary Bonuses Maximum” of $20,700.00 for the Team: (Lucy, Adam, Arash, Jimmy, Josiah, Leemo, Luke, Michelle), not including Gerard. However, on the proposal it says “The plan was to distribute $29,000 to the team”.
Could you please explain why these amounts are different?
From the information provided I can see that the requested tips for refs do not match the maximum agreed discretionary amounts on the document for some of the team members:
Ref 1598 - Luke - $1112.50 vs $1000 maximum
Ref 1601 - Michelle - $487.50 vs $750 maximum
Ref 1604 - Josiah - $4000 vs $3000 maximum
Ref 1605 - Adam - $2400 vs $1000 maximum
Ref 1609 - Arash - $900 vs $1000 maximum
Ref 1610 - Leemo - $200 vs $400 maximum
Ref 1606 - Gerard - $7000 - NOT part of the program team, according to document NOT eligible for a discretionary payment from the ambassador fellowship fund from ref. 1287)
NOT requested - Lucy - NOT requested vs $12800 maximum
NOT requested - Jimmy - NOT requested vs $750 maximum
The sum of the above Refs and Jimmy and Lucy’s amount (NOT requested) gives me a total of $29,650, close to the $29,000 mentioned but it still does not match the maximum discretionary amounts described on the document.