Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
Paseo Developer Testnet 2nd Top-up Request
Following the successful execution of the first 2025 funding cycle, this proposal requests a 6-month top-up for the Paseo Bounty (#37) to ensure uninterrupted operations through Q4 2025 and Q1 2026.
We are requesting ≈ 113,217 DOT (≈ $344,946 at EMA7 = $3.046731) to sustain the ongoing work of the Paseo core group and service providers covering runtime upgrades, validator infrastructure, DevRel support, and continuous testing across parachain and system chain releases.
This top-up ensures operational continuity ahead of the migration to the multi-asset bounty pallet and stablecoin-based funding model planned for 2026. Any unused funds from this period will be returned to the treasury or converted into USDT/C-based once they become available.
📄 Full proposal
📎 Previous top-up proposal
📎 Paseo Bounty (#37)
Comments (11)
Requested
Proposal Passed
Thank you for your proposal.
We are voting "nay" on all proposals requesting full up-front payments (this includes bounties).
Please consider using scheduled payouts: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/treasury-guardianship/14145/9?u=gabrielj
Bounties are a great use case of scheduled payouts with monthly scheduled transfers to the bounty for example.
@Treasury Guardian Appreciate the comment, but this argument doesn’t really hold up in practice. A bounty is already a sub-treasury with built-in controls, so funds aren’t “paid upfront,” they’re held under governance and only released through curator-approved payouts.
Introducing a scheduled payout on top of that adds almost no extra accountability and just duplicates the existing mechanism. Cancelling a bounty requires the same governance steps as cancelling a scheduled payout, so operationally it’s identical.
If anything, the Paseo budget should increase IMHO so the support can be improved.