Dear community,

This OpenGov referendum seeks to re-submit the specifics of [motion 339](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/council/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](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/1352) 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](https://polkadot.js.org/apps/?rpc=wss%3A%2F%2Frpc.polkadot.io#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).




- **Problem Statement:** Rejected motion 339 due to technical issues with treasury.Spend, aiming to reward 'high quality' nomination pools.
- **Significance:** Enhancing transparency and fairness in rewarding nomination pools based on specific criteria.
- **Proposed Solution:** Implement an incentive program to reward pools meeting set criteria using an open-source tool for objective evaluation.
- **Expected Outcomes:** Rewarding 22 pools with 250 DOT each, issuing 250 DOT to PolkaGate for tool development, promoting fair rewards distribution among pool members.

#331 Nomination Pool Incentives - Fixing an issue with Motion 339

No Active Proposals