# Cancelled

Preimage for this referendum removed, execution will fail even if this passes.

## Original description

The P<>K bridge charges user fees on originating Asset Hub, but it pays relayer rewards from AssetHubs' sovereign accounts on sibling BridgeHub parachains. These relayer rewards are a large part of the bridge's "operating costs".

For initial deployment, AssetHub's sovereign accounts on BridgeHubs should be pre-funded by treasury.

An initial 10000 DOT and 2000 KSM is proposed to be split among the relevant system chain sovereign accounts to provide initial bootstrap runway to the bridge.

This will only be an initial seed. As the bridge operates, it should cover operation costs (relayer fees) from the user fees paid on Asset Hub, and any unspent user fees ("bridge profits") are going to the treasury anyway, so in the longer term these funds are practically paid back (plus profits).

Exact system chain addresses being funded and amounts for each can be found here: https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238

Funding these directly from the treasury requires `Root` track which is slow and will delay bridge deployment.

The current "small spender" proposal relies on me, a Polkadot Fellow, Parity employee and known contributor to Polkadot development, to receive the funds then redistribute them according to the [distribution described in fellowship GH issue tracking this](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238#issuecomment-2007179202).

If this approach is rejected, we will take the bridge deployment delay hit and fall back to creating another referendum on the root/whitelisted-caller track for moving the funds directly without any intermediary manual transfers.

The P<>K bridge charges user fees on originating Asset Hub, but it pays relayer rewards from AssetHubs' sovereign accounts on sibling BridgeHub parachains. These relayer rewards are a large part of the bridge's "operating costs".

For initial deployment, AssetHub's sovereign accounts on BridgeHubs should be pre-funded by treasury.

An initial 10000 DOT and 2000 KSM is proposed to be split among the relevant system chain sovereign accounts to provide initial bootstrap runway to the bridge.

This will only be an initial seed. As the bridge operates, it should cover operation costs (relayer fees) from the user fees paid on Asset Hub, and any unspent user fees ("bridge profits") are going to the treasury anyway, so in the longer term these funds are practically paid back (plus profits).

Exact system chain addresses being funded and amounts for each can be found here: https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238

Funding these directly from the treasury requires `Root` track which is slow and will delay bridge deployment.

The current "small spender" proposal relies on me, a Polkadot Fellow, Parity employee and known contributor to Polkadot development, to receive the funds then redistribute them according to the [distribution described in fellowship GH issue tracking this](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/issues/238#issuecomment-2007179202).

If this approach is rejected, we will take the bridge deployment delay hit and fall back to creating another referendum on the root/whitelisted-caller track for moving the funds directly without any intermediary manual transfers.

Fund system chains sovereign accounts on Polkadot BridgeHub for Polkadot<>Kusama bridge

- **Problem Statement:** 
  - Pre-funding sovereign accounts on BridgeHubs for relayer rewards to cover operating costs without delaying bridge deployment.

- **Significance:** 
  - Avoiding delays in bridge deployment and ensuring initial bootstrap runway for the bridge's operation.

- **Proposed Solution:** 
  - Initial funding of 10000 DOT and 2000 KSM split among relevant system chain sovereign accounts to support bridge operation.

- **Expected Outcomes:** 
  - Smooth bridge deployment, covering operation costs from user fees, and potential profits returned to the treasury in the long term.

Requested: 0.10 undefined

#586 Request withdrawn - replaced by whitelisted caller #593