Referendum #822 - Refill for marketing bounty number #33
Beneficiary:Comments (10)
Proposal Failed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (15)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (73)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
Comments (10)
Unfortunately, we can see that this bounty has been a mixed bag. This bounty has had high points like the 10 year Coingecko integration. But KOL / crypto-influencer "investment" seems like a waste of resources so we see that funding KOLs perpetually is not justified. Something that even to this day is a large spend percentage of this bounty. There have been already articles describing its lack of consistent impact (the only impact seems to be on the 1 day window). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4412017 The only positive point for this bounty presented so far regarding KOLs, is that the agencies have managed to reduce the KOLs payments and gotten better KOL deals, something that is not a great selling point for perpetual funding. A second point is that: this would be a better idea if it was a recurrent payment of 1.5M in stables. That is still not a good idea as we all know because the treasury won't be able to pay a year of this bounty if it was requested though stables. A recurrent payment of 200k DOT at this point leaves more room for spending more than the 1.5M previously agreed upon (Something that was not respected the previous refill either) also it still is open to variance in price. For the time being, it'd be better to continue requesting it manually by adjusting to the price of DOT on that month to the 1.5M agreed upon and more importantly by making a proper attempt at respecting budgets while proving the bounty effective, after all this bounty only exists for 5 months and it's been full of controversies and doubts. Given that non-KOL / non-crypto influencer marketing proposals pass easily as long as they are good quality through regular opengov referenda this perpetual funding really doesn't make sense. We will be voting NAY.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlOX5l5jfFfVq0-aS8YFqGY97fg7\_EdDt2Tb3qfJq6U/edit?usp=sharing
Unfortunately, we can see that this bounty has been a mixed bag. This bounty has had high points like the 10 year Coingecko integration. But KOL / crypto-influencer "investment" seems like a waste of resources so we see that funding KOLs perpetually is not justified. Something that even to this day is a large spend percentage of this bounty. There have been already articles describing its lack of consistent impact (the only impact seems to be on the 1 day window). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4412017 The only positive point for this bounty presented so far regarding KOLs, is that the agencies have managed to reduce the KOLs payments and gotten better KOL deals, something that is not a great selling point for perpetual funding. A second point is that: this would be a better idea if it was a recurrent payment of 1.5M in stables. That is still not a good idea as we all know because the treasury won't be able to pay a year of this bounty if it was requested though stables. A recurrent payment of 200k DOT at this point leaves more room for spending more than the 1.5M previously agreed upon (Something that was not respected the previous refill either) also it still is open to variance in price. For the time being, it'd be better to continue requesting it manually by adjusting to the price of DOT on that month to the 1.5M agreed upon and more importantly by making a proper attempt at respecting budgets while proving the bounty effective, after all this bounty only exists for 5 months and it's been full of controversies and doubts. Given that non-KOL / non-crypto influencer marketing proposals pass easily as long as they are good quality through regular opengov referenda this perpetual funding really doesn't make sense. We will be voting NAY.