<span style="font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;">UPDATE #3:
<span style="font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;"><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748779552757756060?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748779552757756060?s=20</a>
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GETxWj0XUAA9YDL?format=png&amp;name=small" alt="Image" />
UPDATE #2:
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Shawn Tabrizi criticism: <a href="https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460">https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460</a></li>
<li>My response: <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20</a></li>
</ol>
UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20</a>
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a></li>
</ol>

The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
You can calculate that the multistig address is calculated correctly by using the following addresses [5/8]:
13HNWD2bmRumQBeZJioWEC94W2LXE2ARy8u1YQF93joTjWuY @InvArchitect 1EpEiYpWRAWmte4oPLtR5B1TZFxcBShBdjK4X9wWnq2KfLK @giottodf 121Rs6fKm8nguHnvPfG1Cq3ctFuNAVZGRmghwkJwHpKxKjbx @sourabhniyogi 13Ec62Cvw9jmPxA23EidSwASPs9X2Vohqv9RCogCfDvXC4c8 @crisng999 138Xe8CbBq1PwbCYmFTrsBpKc8HzymbGsi9K8bQLjXxCogV9 @TheeWeb3Patriot 14zsSB1tbxaeXBNPTBJCKgWxu2ZSMc6FpGZrXdJFmoUpZX8X @Strindbergman 12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961 @JayChrawnna 12pUXtKj7jD3yaxnK6TWKBsxS1JpLUceBKZKMPMH6RiZvjr4 @Luis_1x

<span style="font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;">UPDATE #3:
<span style="font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;"><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748779552757756060?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748779552757756060?s=20</a>
UPDATE #2:
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Shawn Tabrizi criticism: <a href="https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460">https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460</a></li>
<li>My response: <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20</a></li>
</ol>
UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20</a>
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a></li>
</ol>

The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
You can calculate that the multistig address is calculated correctly by using the following addresses [5/8]:
13HNWD2bmRumQBeZJioWEC94W2LXE2ARy8u1YQF93joTjWuY @InvArchitect 1EpEiYpWRAWmte4oPLtR5B1TZFxcBShBdjK4X9wWnq2KfLK @giottodf 121Rs6fKm8nguHnvPfG1Cq3ctFuNAVZGRmghwkJwHpKxKjbx @sourabhniyogi 13Ec62Cvw9jmPxA23EidSwASPs9X2Vohqv9RCogCfDvXC4c8 @crisng999 138Xe8CbBq1PwbCYmFTrsBpKc8HzymbGsi9K8bQLjXxCogV9 @TheeWeb3Patriot 14zsSB1tbxaeXBNPTBJCKgWxu2ZSMc6FpGZrXdJFmoUpZX8X @Strindbergman 12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961 @JayChrawnna 12pUXtKj7jD3yaxnK6TWKBsxS1JpLUceBKZKMPMH6RiZvjr4 @Luis_1x

Polkadot Watchdogs Governance Monthly Incentive Referendum #1 - VOTE NAY

UPDATE #2:
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Shawn Tabrizi criticism: <a href="https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460">https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460</a></li>
<li>My response: <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20</a></li>
</ol>
UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20</a>
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a></li>
</ol>

The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
You can calculate that the multistig address is calculated correctly by using the following addresses [5/8]:
13HNWD2bmRumQBeZJioWEC94W2LXE2ARy8u1YQF93joTjWuY @InvArchitect 1EpEiYpWRAWmte4oPLtR5B1TZFxcBShBdjK4X9wWnq2KfLK @giottodf 121Rs6fKm8nguHnvPfG1Cq3ctFuNAVZGRmghwkJwHpKxKjbx @sourabhniyogi 13Ec62Cvw9jmPxA23EidSwASPs9X2Vohqv9RCogCfDvXC4c8 @crisng999 138Xe8CbBq1PwbCYmFTrsBpKc8HzymbGsi9K8bQLjXxCogV9 @TheeWeb3Patriot 14zsSB1tbxaeXBNPTBJCKgWxu2ZSMc6FpGZrXdJFmoUpZX8X @Strindbergman 12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961 @JayChrawnna 12pUXtKj7jD3yaxnK6TWKBsxS1JpLUceBKZKMPMH6RiZvjr4 @Luis_1x

Polkadot Watchdogs Governance Monthly Incentive Referendum #1

UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20</a>
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a></li>
</ol>

The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
You can calculate that the multistig address is calculated correctly by using the following addresses [5/8]:
13HNWD2bmRumQBeZJioWEC94W2LXE2ARy8u1YQF93joTjWuY @InvArchitect 1EpEiYpWRAWmte4oPLtR5B1TZFxcBShBdjK4X9wWnq2KfLK @giottodf 121Rs6fKm8nguHnvPfG1Cq3ctFuNAVZGRmghwkJwHpKxKjbx @sourabhniyogi 13Ec62Cvw9jmPxA23EidSwASPs9X2Vohqv9RCogCfDvXC4c8 @crisng999 138Xe8CbBq1PwbCYmFTrsBpKc8HzymbGsi9K8bQLjXxCogV9 @TheeWeb3Patriot 14zsSB1tbxaeXBNPTBJCKgWxu2ZSMc6FpGZrXdJFmoUpZX8X @Strindbergman 12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961 @JayChrawnna 12pUXtKj7jD3yaxnK6TWKBsxS1JpLUceBKZKMPMH6RiZvjr4 @Luis_1x

UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:

[<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20

](<https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20>)

The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.

---

The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction — the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.

This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.

The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.

The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:

However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people “READY TO VOTE” and NOT to “FORCE THEM TO VOTE”. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.

TLDR:

- If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES
- If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO





If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting

If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:

1. [https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20](<https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20>)
2. [https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20](<https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20>)
3. [https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20](<https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20>)



The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:

Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5

Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.

If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES

You can calculate that the multistig address is calculated correctly by using the following addresses [5/8]:

13HNWD2bmRumQBeZJioWEC94W2LXE2ARy8u1YQF93joTjWuY @InvArchitect 1EpEiYpWRAWmte4oPLtR5B1TZFxcBShBdjK4X9wWnq2KfLK @giottodf 121Rs6fKm8nguHnvPfG1Cq3ctFuNAVZGRmghwkJwHpKxKjbx @sourabhniyogi 13Ec62Cvw9jmPxA23EidSwASPs9X2Vohqv9RCogCfDvXC4c8 @crisng999 138Xe8CbBq1PwbCYmFTrsBpKc8HzymbGsi9K8bQLjXxCogV9 @TheeWeb3Patriot 14zsSB1tbxaeXBNPTBJCKgWxu2ZSMc6FpGZrXdJFmoUpZX8X @Strindbergman 12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961 @JayChrawnna 12pUXtKj7jD3yaxnK6TWKBsxS1JpLUceBKZKMPMH6RiZvjr4 @Luis_1x

UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20"><span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20</a>
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a></li>
</ol>
The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES

UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
1) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a> 2) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a> 3) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a>
The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES

The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>
If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
1) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a> 2) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a> 3) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a>
The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES

Problem Statement:
- There is a misunderstanding about the purpose of the referendum, leading to negative comments and criticism.

Significance:
- The purpose of the referendum is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and the network from potential malicious attacks.
- The referendum aims to make governance more democratic and encourage people to participate.

Proposed Solution:
- If the referendum passes, those who vote yes will receive a share of 100k DOT tokens.
- The reward will be based on the sum of all yes votes multiplied by the conviction of each voter.

Expected Outcomes:
- Increased participation in governance.
- Strengthened protection for the treasury and the network.

Requested: 0.10 undefined

#431 Polkadot Watchdogs Governance Monthly Incentive Referendum #1 - VOTE NAY