Nomination Pool Incentives - Fixing an issue with Motion 339
Beneficiary:Dear community,
This OpenGov referendum seeks to re-submit the specifics of motion 339 which was rejected due to technical reasons, treasury.Spend would not work under the council approval.
In summary, the motion sought to reward 'high quality' nomination pools using a deterministic evaluation system.
The details are below:
An incentive programme was initiated to reward high quality nomination pools. The exercise was completed and reviews all pools prior to the expansion of the pool base which occurred shortly after block 13686541.
The programme seeks to reward pools which have met the following criteria:
- Has metadata
- Pool creator has verified identity
- Has nominees
- Is Open
- Has more than 10 members
The analysis is supported by an open source tool developed by Polkagate which allows for a more objective analysis. The results of the analysis was posted (see last post) for public scrutiny for which none was received. With this said, we would like to proceed with rewarding 22 pools with 250 DOT as well as issuing a payout to PolkaGate of 250 DOT as well for developing the tool. Please note that rewards would be shared among all pool members and isn't submitted to the pool creator.
Call data for this motion: HERE.
Comments (3)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (124)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (15)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
Hello team,
Please remember to formally announce your OpenGov referendum in the Polkadot Direction channel, so that Community members are aware, can review, and cast their votes.
Thank you.
For further context, this was an initiative that was discussed months ago and around the lunch of Nomination Pools in Polkadot. The idea was to create incentives for pool operators to create high quality pools, to make sure the community has enough "reasonably good choices" at the early days. I think the outcome of this has been successful and there are many well-known pools out there. I was not aware that the previous attempt to finalize this has failed. In that case, I am in favor of finalizing it here ASAP. Kami and Will have collaborated to gather the data required (i.e. pools that are eligible, based on the metrics defined) and I want to thank them both for their contributions.