Funding the Technical Fellowship Sub-Treasury
This is a referendum to follow up on the discussion about funding the Fellowship sub-treasury. It will send 2 million DOT from the "main" Treasury into the account controlled by the Core Fellowship sub-treasury. The only feedback was that it should be bigger, so I have increased the proposal from 1 to 2 million.
This will allow the Fellowship to propose and approve funding proposals directly, allowing teams with more technical proposals to pitch directly to the Fellowship for their work rather than going through the main referendum tracks. Other collectives will have the same ability to grant proposals from their sub-treasuries.
In the future, with the implementation of RFC-89 and related issues, the runtime could automatically configure tranches of inflation to go to specified sub-treasuries.
Comments (2)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (79)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (2)0.0 DOT
Comments (2)
This proposal is an essential step that will allow the *Polkadot Technical Fellowship* to fully operate as an independent and self-standing entity within the Blockchain industry.
ChaosDAO would like to provide the following feedback from our community. We offer this feedback voluntarily in the spirit of OpenGov, in order to help teams improve their proposals so we can all build the network together.
-
Members in general were split on whether or not the Polkadot Technical Fellowship being in control of treasury spends made sense – this is the primary reason for the Abstain vote – it is rather common for members to have widely varying opinions.
-
Some members discussed that this is a path to sub-DAOs within the Polkadot ecosystem which seems to be the path that a lot of people believe we should go down.
ChaosDAO votes as a collective based on the results of our anonymous internal voting procedures. Our members are not required to provide any feedback about why they have voted in a particular direction. Similarly, to respect our members' right to anonymity, we will not be sharing the names of individuals who have chosen to voluntarily provide feedback. You can find out more about how we vote and how to get in contact with us here: https://x.com/ChaosDAO/status/1762986093316587995. We would like to disclose that some of our members are affiliated with this referendum, be that on the submission, operational side or on the curator team. However, the number of affiliated members is vastly outnumbered by the number of non-affiliated members who voted on this proposal. Additionally, our internal processes dictate that those with a COI for a particular referendum must recuse. Therefore we are confident that ChaosDAO's vote unequivocally does not represent a COI.
This proposal is an essential step that will allow the *Polkadot Technical Fellowship* to fully operate as an independent and self-standing entity within the Blockchain industry.
ChaosDAO would like to provide the following feedback from our community. We offer this feedback voluntarily in the spirit of OpenGov, in order to help teams improve their proposals so we can all build the network together.
Members in general were split on whether or not the Polkadot Technical Fellowship being in control of treasury spends made sense – this is the primary reason for the Abstain vote – it is rather common for members to have widely varying opinions.
Some members discussed that this is a path to sub-DAOs within the Polkadot ecosystem which seems to be the path that a lot of people believe we should go down.
ChaosDAO votes as a collective based on the results of our anonymous internal voting procedures. Our members are not required to provide any feedback about why they have voted in a particular direction. Similarly, to respect our members' right to anonymity, we will not be sharing the names of individuals who have chosen to voluntarily provide feedback. You can find out more about how we vote and how to get in contact with us here: https://x.com/ChaosDAO/status/1762986093316587995. We would like to disclose that some of our members are affiliated with this referendum, be that on the submission, operational side or on the curator team. However, the number of affiliated members is vastly outnumbered by the number of non-affiliated members who voted on this proposal. Additionally, our internal processes dictate that those with a COI for a particular referendum must recuse. Therefore we are confident that ChaosDAO's vote unequivocally does not represent a COI.