PROBLEM STATEMENT

Some current issues related to marketing proposals:
 
● Insufficiently robust investment in marketing about the Polkadot ecosystem diminishes the general crypto community's interest in the ecosystem, as well as reducing the appeal for developers to engage in building projects.

● Diverse marketing qualities and perspectives within the ecosystem, especially among significant stakeholders, generate unwarranted negativity.

● Varying values presented in different proposals create significant disparities when balancing budgets.

● Low-quality proposals and lack of verification lead to the potential for fraudulent activities.
 
Furthermore, there are certain risks and potential benefits directly impacting the Polkadot ecosystem behind these proposals, which the general community might not spend much time researching, and still make voting decisions, resulting in inefficiencies.
 
 
PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES

The goal of marketing bounty is to reward marketing teams/entities for their effort and bring enormous traction for the whole Polkadot ecosystem, push Polkadot back to the top list and become a real “community protocol".
 
In this proposal, we are proposing a set of 8 main curators who will be responsible to curate marketing-related proposals with different categories:

(1) Approach new target audience/users.

(2) Retain Polkadot ecosystem lovers, daily users.

(3) Educate, and produce tutorial contents for users/developers.

(4) Manage local communities (ecosystem update/users support/developers engagement).

(5) Amplify branding for high-trusted ecosystem agents.

(6) Sponsorship for specific occasions (F1 Race, Super Bowl, etc).

(7) One time campaign (1 specific event generated by several influencers).
 
In this proposal, we are proposing a set of 8 main curators who will be responsible to curate marketing-related activities with multisig using pure proxy via MultiX. We also propose a compensation rate for weekly management. However, within the curator set, some individuals will hold positions as significant investors and they will have the option to return a portion of their received reward from the multisig fund after a specified period.
 
All 8 curators will manage the funds using a multisig with pure proxy via MultiX. The threshold is set to 4 out of 8 for a child-bounty to get released. Conflicts of interests are addressed in the proposals with feedback from various Polkadot core contributors.
 
 
FULL PROPOSAL HERE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_hkZ6-N-8yt7JVF_ITHKL4tpsC-ZWSSrgT0Sce255RY/edit?usp=sharing
 
Main contact: polkadotmarketingbounty@gmail.com

Marketing Bounty Proposal

The purpose of this referendum is to prevent the integration of the ambassador collective onchain. The idea is to completely restructure the ambassador program with proper incentives. Almost everyone agrees that the program is a failure and is completely ineffective. Funding something ineffective will make it even more ineffective. It has to be completely restructed first. The first step is to ensure that the ambassador collective does not go on chain

Poll: https://t.me/dotxpert/835

Ambassador program 2.0: rebuilding from scratch the ambassador program

With this referendum we are asking 1 million DOT for future funding of DED

Based on several Twitter polls I have the feeling that the community is against funding this meme coin for the long run in order to make it a success

This referendum is designed to understand if there is appetite in funding DED for the long run or not, it doesn't mean the 1 million have to be entirely spent but they could be spent if it will lead to effective results

The point is we have to decide if to airdrop 100% of the DED tokens or not

If we airdrop 100% of the tokens we have to be sure that we have funds from the treasury to support the development and marketing of DED

Because if we airdrop 100% and then the community doesn't want to continue funding DED we basically run out of ammunition, we cannot sell DED tokens to private investors or give them to influencers

Voting yes to this referendum means that 100% of the supply will be distributed to DOT holders as initially planned

Voting no means that a smaller amount will be distributed to DOT holders and private investors will be involved and some tokens will also be given to influencers

I will abstain from voting on this referendum because the goal is to sense the long-term view of the community regarding funding DED

For context:

https://x.com/giottodf/status/1765800732735815823?s=20
https://x.com/giottodf/status/1765970981842006224?s=20

Curators: TBD

DED Bounty

The purpose of this bounty is to quickly fund meetups for small amounts. The idea is quick turnaround when the amount required is small. The total limit per meetup for this bounty is $2,500

Here is the current list of curators:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hNdflU8hB0J58Kv6VacVVItasnGga_JeOEuJ98eBkw4/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone can still apply for curator by joining this chat:

https://t.me/dotmeetups

The only rule is that you cannot sign if your beneficiary of the payment

Meetups Bounty

This new marketing bounty is being created in order to be more flexible compared to the previous one [33]

The issue with the previous one is that the mandate was extremely complicated and detailed which was most likely unnecessary. It will be replaced by this new bounty which will have a very simple and easy to understand scope

The scope of the new bounty is the following:

The purpose of this bounty is to support marketing for Polkadot. There are no specific rules and restrictions regarding to which type of marketing is going to be supported, or specific maximum caps regarding projects or anything of the sort. This bounty is more mission based, it will try to identify the best opportunities for marketing as those opportunities arise. There is no point setting artificial limitations that will simply prevent us from taking the best opportunities. The community is of course free to refuse to refill or to request a change of curators if not satisfied with the results. I personally believe it is more important to produce quality results and be effective rather than write extremely complicated and detailed proposals that only create problems and limitations later on.

The only rule of this bounty is that if one of the curators is involved in the proposal they have to abstain from voting

All reports regarding expenses and deliveries will always be available at the following link: https://bit.ly/m/reports

Marketing Bounty Flex - VOTE NAY

The goal of this bounty is to push BD for Polkadot.

Right now DF is reviewing certain BD applications however those mostly come from ex Parity people.

Most TOP BD people are not aware about DF and are not applying.

I have requested the head hunting agency Missing Link to assist with identifying very STRONG BD candidates with previous experience and successful track record on other chains. 

In order to attract them we need a bounty that allows to fund them and pay in small increments because we have to be able to see if they can deliver or not.

Referendum is not a good solution because:
- no one is going to agree to work if they have to go every month to referendum to get their compensation
- paying one year in advance is also crazy because it reduces the motivation and there is no way to recover the money in case of lack of delivery

The bounty is the right instrument because:
- it removes the uncertainty of referendum for them
- they know that if they do not deliver the relationship can be interrupted at any time

I am currently interviewing with five potential  BD candidates and I think they could really deliver significant results in terms of bringing quality partnerships for Polkadot

The list of curators has not been defined yet and will be defined in the next referendum.

I am discussing with different credible curators and will finalize the list hopefully in 1-2 weeks.

I am posting the bounty just to ensure that we can start deploying capital as soon as possible. Of course the community is always free to reject the list of curators once it is proposed

BD Bounty

UPDATE:

1) https://x.com/giottodf/status/1755499400598528458?s=20

2) Join the chat:

https://t.me/dotgamesbounty

Very important: Read the pinned message to understand exactly how it works when you join the chat

=============

The goal of this Bounty is to incentivize and reward indie developers to build games on Polkadot.

The idea is that UNLIKE CLASSICAL STARTUP funding that is usually done by VCs and requires an incredible amount of due diligence and expertise because of:

- the vast scope of potential problems and solutions being tackled by the various startups
- the high uncertainty regarding the reliability and the ability to execute of the team
- the complexity of different business plans based on specific bets on future market trends



DEVELOPING GAMES is a lot more predictable and it is a lot easier to assess what the cost should be and the ability to execute of the team.

Those games can be highly valuable to the ecosystem especially if they are tightly integrated with the chain.

It is easy to assess the ability of a team to produce a game just by looking at previous work. It is also easy to assess the cost because it is only cost of development and not cost of creating a complete business.

It is also easy to pay in small milestones minimizing the risk. You do not need to give large amounts of money at high valuations to people and let them play with the money, you just pay incrementally as the game gets developed and you see the development happening.

Basically classical VC investing is a lot less linear but game development is quite linear, you can really pay as the game is being developed, understand the costs incurred, predict the time to completion, assess the quality objectively, etc

The idea is that game development is a specific niche that does not require the deep expertise of the VCs and can also provide a very strong adoption of the underlying blockchain Polkadot.

I believe that we can seed and fund incrementally indie game developers with minimal risk and potentially high upside for the ecosystem.

The purpose of this bounty is to be able to do this.

The list of curators has not been defined yet and will be defined in the next referendum.

I am discussing with different credible curators and will finalize the list hopefully in 1-2 weeks.

I am posting the bounty just to ensure that we can start deploying capital as soon as possible. Of course the community is always free to reject the list of curators once it is proposed

Games Bounty

Previous refill of 500k just got confirmed yesterday

I am requesting a refill of another 500k for the following reasons:

- Right now marketing bounty doesn't have any funds and the next spending period is 22 days away. That means that the bounty will have to function on credit trying to promise influencers and partners that they will be paid later so as soon as we receive the funds a good chunk will immediately go because of the debts we will have accumulated during those 22 days

- The price of DOT lost almost 50% since the previous refill of 500K was requested

- Based on some feedback I received within some private chats and a survey on Twitter it seems that the community is more interested in transparency than in being cost effective. One of the reasons we are able to negotiate discounts with influencers is because we promise them that we will not disclose the individual prices but only the aggregate. Influencers do not want to offer discounts if those are going to be made public. However many people complain of lack of transparency and would prefer that we pay the full price and do not ask for discounts so that we can itemize how much we spend for every influencer instead of just providing the aggregate for a group of influencers. This is going to increase the cost of roughly 50% to 100% but we will get more transparency

Requesting a refill for marketing bounty number #33

We just got executed for a refill of 250k and we barely made it before the spending period

I believe the marketing bounty should always have a reserve of min 500K to avoid risk of interrupting marketing

We expect spending to increase in the coming months and we want to try to take every opportunity for increased exposure during the coming bull market

We are also going to do deals with airports in key cities which have to be paid many months in advance and cannot be paid on a month to month basis so it requires some reserves

I am requesting a refill of 500k DOT

All reports regarding expenses and deliveries will always be available at the following link: https://bit.ly/m/reports

Requesting a refill for marketing bounty number #33

We just got executed for a refill of 100k and we barely made it before the spending period. If that had happened there would have been no funds for marketing for an entire month which would have been disastrous. It is important that the marketing bounty always has several months worth of spending in reserve to avoid this situation especially given the uncertainty introduced by DV

I am requesting a refill of 250k DOT

Bounty #41 will be abandoned and instead we are making amendment to bounty #33 with this specific referendum

This is the updated description of bounty #33:

The purpose of this bounty is to support marketing for Polkadot. There are no specific rules and restrictions regarding to which type of marketing is going to be supported, or specific maximum caps regarding projects or anything of the sort. This bounty is more mission based, it will try to identify the best opportunities for marketing as those opportunities arise.

I personally believe it is more important to produce quality results and be effective rather than write extremely complicated and detailed proposals that only create problems and limitations later on.

The only rule of this bounty is that if one of the curators is involved in the proposal they have to abstain from voting

All reports regarding expenses and deliveries will always be available at the following link: https://bit.ly/m/reports

Refill for marketing bounty number #33 [250k]

Marketing Bounty was created with a very small budget of only 90k DOT with the intention to remain small and be often refilled

We need to refill to be sure we are covered for the following months

You can find here invoices and delivery reports: https://bit.ly/m/reports

Refill Marketing Bounty [33]

Polkadot Head Ambassador Application: Leemo

https://docs.google.com/document/u/2/d/e/2PACX-1vS8zUJd9KWNXM397ILcS-edDa7Dy3ddjJr7DeF3LA1PKCbvo8vH1tvi-Vl235RvtH3ILx5ehz5ymAXR/pub

Polkadot Head Ambassador Application: Leemo

Referendum 917 is not needed anymore since same curators took over existing Games Bounty

Cancel 917

Referendum 923 is not needed anymore because the curators of bounty 923 have transferred power to a new set of curators that meets the criteria of an effective bounty

Cancel 923

Referendum 912 posted on the wrong track

Cancel root ref #693

The purpose of this referendum is to allow the community to democratically vote specifically on the fact of if it is acceptable to resubmit a proposal that recently failed 

The factors to consider are: 
- The proposal lost by a very small minority, it was very close to 50/50
- The proposal mostly lost because of DV. Of course DV is democratic but no DV is even more democratic, that's probably why W3F is not willing to delegate root track to DV. The most important track of all must be truly democratic 
- The new proposal has significant improvements

The idea is that it is more rational and effective to split the debate into two different referendums, one about the form (if the practice is acceptable) and one about the substance (if it is a good deal) 

Instead of mixing both into the single main referendum it's better to have two referendums, everyone can vote separately on the form (referendum canceler) and on the substance (main referendum) keeping both debates separate 

This is more effective and more democratic

Cancel Chainanalysis ref

I propose not to allow any delegations on the following tracks which should be considered of vital importance:

- Root track (could completely change the protocol)
- Wish for change track (could produce deep changes in the protocol)
- Treasurer track (unlimited spending without any cap, potentially burning the full treasury if the beneficiary address is a burn address)

The idea behind delegation is good, it's the concept that for specific actions you do not want to vote yourself but you rather trust a third party. However for things of extreme importance it is risky to trust a third party because of the well-known agent problem

Just like in your daily life you can issue a POA for a commercial contract but not for extremely important events like for example marriage / divorce / etc

Certain events are so critical that it is important to know that there is no risk that the agent might have a different opinion than the owner

This is not specifically targeted at DV (even if of course their role has to be considered) but it's more about the idea that for certain tracks it is perfectly reasonable to do delegations and for others it's not in order to protect the integrity of the system

error - vote NAY

# Polkadot Ambassador Program

This document describes the mandate for a proposed Polkadot Ambassador Program, to be realized as an on-chain, rank-based, system collective.

Members of the program, Ambassadors, should represent Polkadot outside of its existing sphere and help bring new entrants into the Polkadot ecosystem. In this capacity, ambassadors have a lot of similarity to what might normally be considered business development, outreach, and relationship management. They should introduce new people and organizations to Polkadot, speak at and host events, and facilitate partnership creation.

Although anyone can perform these services in their own capacity, having a program that formally recognizes members makes the work more effective. The recognition that comes with a title like Ambassador helps in building important relationships.

A rank-based, on-chain collective will allow the network to manage membership in a decentralized way, and also allow the organization to manage a treasury for salaries, events, and other expenses incurred in fulfilling its objectives.

## Membership

The program will have four ranks, from highest to lowest: Head Ambassador (HA), Senior Ambassador (SA), Ambassador, and Candidate Ambassador (CA).

### Head Ambassadors

Head Ambassadors are the highest ranking group of ambassadors and correspondingly hold the most power within the group. Head Ambassadors can only be appointed (or removed) via general token-holder referendum on a new, Ambassador Admin track. This track should be configured in a similar fashion to the existing Fellowship Admin track.

The role of Head Ambassador should necessitate activity on par with a full time job. Besides their capacity of leading the program, HAs should be able to represent Polkadot effectively to new people and businesses and be able to speak fluently on the philosophy underpinning Web3 technologies, on Polkadot and its high-level design decisions, how Polkadot compares to other blockchain tech stacks, and typical user stories like staking, participating in governance, or building parachains. They may not be (and probably are not) developers, but they should demonstrate sufficient skill, understanding, and communication ability to be trusted to work autonomously in the best interest of Polkadot.

The program should only allow up to 21 Head Ambassadors. Once the number is reached, adding a new HA shall require replacing an existing HA or making a proposal to all token holders on the Ambassador Admin track to alter the program.

### Senior Ambassadors

Senior Ambassadors are promoted from Ambassador on the Head Ambassador track. The SAs should be experienced Polkadot Ambassadors who have already made substantial contributions to the success of Polkadot. One would expect that SAs have been using Polkadot and are engaged in the ecosystem by for example hosting or speaking at events or participating in a non-trivial way in governance discussions.

### Ambassadors

The Ambassador tier is the main level of the program where the majority of people will stand. Ambassadors should be fluent in most end-user applications of Polkadot. They should, for example, be able to show a new person how to stake via a nomination pool or how to set an identity on-chain. Ambassadors may do any number of things, like translate documentation, make tutorials in written or video form, host/attend events, etc. It is up to the judgement of the HAs and SAs to set objectives for the program and decide what is most effective and what should be recognized.

### Candidates

All new joiners to the program enter as a Candidate. Ambassadors can induct Candidates, but they will need approval from the Senior Ambassador track to get promoted to Ambassador. Members should generally not stay Candidates for long (as a guideline, no more than six months); it ensures a fast onboarding to the program, but those who are inactive should be removed and those who are active and competent should be promoted to Ambassador.

## Treasury and Salaries

The Ambassador Program should have an on-chain Treasury. It is envisioned that this Treasury is used in the following ways.

### Salaries

Head Ambassadors shall receive a salary of 10,000 USDT (or equivalent stablecoin) per month. This represents their commitment to representing Polkadot in the equivalent of full-time capacity and their ability to bring high-value entrants into Polkadot. Given that personal circumstances can necessitate periods of lower activity (e.g. vacation, family, illness), HAs can place themselves on a passive 2,000 USDT per month allowance until they are back full-time.

Other members of the program do not receive a regular salary, although they may make proposals to the Treasury to cover expenses or recognize exceptional work.

### Proposals

Members of the program at any rank can make funding proposals to the Treasury. These proposals could be to cover expenses related to hosting an event, for rewarding exceptional contributions by members, putting funds into the salary account, or for general Treasury management (for example converting some DOT to a stablecoin or other asset).

The Treasury shall have two main tracks:

1. Spends of less than 1,000 USDT can be approved by the Senior Ambassador track.
2. Spends of 1,000 USDT or greater must be approved by the Head Ambassador track.





## Seeding

The introduction of the program to the Polkadot runtime should not include any initial members. Only after the program is included in the Polkadot runtime should referenda be held to appoint Head Ambassadors.

Because the Head Ambassador track is powerful within the group and there will be a seeding phase where there is a small number of HAs, the HAs shall not take any action until there are at least ten HAs appointed. That is, until such point, the program should not be allocated Treasury funds, all remarks from HAs shall be ignored, and HAs who use the track to induct Ambassadors or Senior Ambassadors should have a referendum to be removed as Head Ambassador.

## Modifications and Evolution

Much like the Technical Fellowship, the Ambassador Program may want to implement changes to how the group operates. It should do this by passing a remark on its Head Ambassador voting track that states the change. This is similar to the Fellowship’s RFC process.

Changes that significantly affect token holders or Head Ambassadors, like program salaries or how many HAs should exist in the program, should pass referendum on the public Ambassador Admin track.

## Tracks

The Ambassador Program should have the following internal tracks:

- Head Ambassadors: A track expressing the voice of Head Ambassadors. As only HAs can vote, each vote is weighted equally.
- Senior Ambassadors: A track expressing the rank-weighted voice of Senior and Head Ambassadors. Each HA shall have five votes and each SA shall have one vote.
- Ambassadors: A track expressing the rank-weighted voice of Ambassadors, Senior Ambassadors, and Head Ambassadors. Each HA shall have ten votes, each SA shall have two votes, and each Ambassador shall have one vote.





All tracks should have a voting period of seven days, with a linear curve such that greater than 50% turnout unanimously in favor can pass a motion at its start and a simple majority of voters at the end (as in, no turnout requirement).

## Conclusion

An on-chain group of ambassadors, dedicated to furthering the awareness, adoption, and ultimate success of Polkadot will be a powerful organization. It should have resources and recognition from the network itself that will attract skilled and effective representatives of Polkadot.

\============

The format of the remark is taken from [RFC-12](<https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/blob/eb7679a/text/0012-process-for-adding-new-collectives.md>) in the form `APPROVE_COLLECTIVE("{collective name}, {commitment}")`, where the collective name is "Polkadot Ambassador Program" and the commitment is the Blake2 hash of the program description, `98dfd4f93660b5858d21d4522f4266484b9bc8303c9db7190200f15086dcf6b7`.

To regenerate the commitment and the on-chain call, you can download the attached `ambassador-program.md` file and run the following python script:

```python
from hashlib import blake2b

fname = './ambassador-program.md'
h = blake2b(digest_size=32)

with open(fname, 'rb') as f:
 h.update(f.read())

print('{}'.format(h.hexdigest()))

# Output: 98dfd4f93660b5858d21d4522f4266484b9bc8303c9db7190200f15086dcf6b7
```

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/17kBUg8Ahrm5UQJf-zBxvFKmqlVAjDeEz/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/17kBUg8Ahrm5UQJf-zBxvFKmqlVAjDeEz/view?usp=sharing)

Polkadot Ambassador Program

Marketing Bounty Drama:

https://x.com/giottodf/status/1809311849726321033

Reports:

https://www.marketing-bounty.com/

https://bit.ly/m/reports

It looks like DOT community doesn't like the idea of automatic monthly refills [ref 822] so we are going back to one off refills as needed

Refill for marketing bounty number #33 - 500k DOT

Error - Vote no

UPDATE 2:

DED foundation has resolved to prioritize speed of execution and will not be seeking funds from the Treasury

--

UPDATE:

Memes serve as a bridge in our community, blending humor with cohesion. They remind us to laugh at ourselves, fostering a sense of belonging. Through shared amusement, memes bring us closer, highlighting our collective journey with light-heartedness and unity.

Any tool created by this bounty for airdrop and distribution of meme coins will be made open source so that any other meme coin creator can use it for their own meme coin

--

With this referendum we are asking 1 million DOT for future funding of DED

Based on several Twitter polls I have the feeling that the community is against funding this meme coin for the long run in order to make it a success

This referendum is designed to understand if there is appetite in funding DED for the long run or not, it doesn't mean the 1 million have to be entirely spent but they could be spent if it will lead to effective results

The point is we have to decide if to airdrop 100% of the DED tokens or not

If we airdrop 100% of the tokens we have to be sure that we have funds from the treasury to support the development and marketing of DED

Because if we airdrop 100% and then the community doesn't want to continue funding DED we basically run out of ammunition, we cannot sell DED tokens to private investors or give them to influencers

Voting yes to this referendum means that 100% of the supply will be distributed to DOT holders as initially planned

Voting no means that a smaller amount will be distributed to DOT holders and private investors will be involved and some tokens will also be given to influencers

I will abstain from voting on this referendum because the goal is to sense the long-term view of the community regarding funding DED

For context:

https://x.com/giottodf/status/1765800732735815823?s=20
https://x.com/giottodf/status/1765970981842006224?s=20

Curators: TBD

DED Bounty - VOTE NAY

Error - Vote NAY

<span style="font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;">UPDATE #3:
<span style="font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background- text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration- display: inline !important; float: none;"><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748779552757756060?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748779552757756060?s=20</a>
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GETxWj0XUAA9YDL?format=png&amp;name=small" alt="Image" />
UPDATE #2:
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Shawn Tabrizi criticism: <a href="https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460">https://twitter.com/shawntabrizi/status/1748547624075235460</a></li>
<li>My response: <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748616692379308220?s=20</a></li>
</ol>
UPDATE: A lot of people are commenting negatively about this proposal both on Polkassembly and Twitter. It seems the main reason for this is because of a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of this referendum. I just finished a Twitter spaces with 300 people asking questions and at the end of the spaces not a single person was against the proposal. So if you're against the proposal I invite you to listen to the recording it will most likely change your mind:
<a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1748329552525369385?s=20</a>
The idea is to incentivize governance participation to protect the treasury and in general the network from potential malicious attacks. There is no difference between rewarding governance participation and rewarding validators. It's exactly the same thing. If you think it's different please listen to the recorded Twitter spaces.
<hr />
The purpose of this referendum is very simple: If you vote yes and the referendum passes you will get some free DOTs. The more DOTs you contribute, and with more conviction &mdash; the bigger will be the reward, linearly pro-rated.
This referendum is asking for 100k DOT to the treasury, if the referendum passes all the people that voted yes will share the 100k DOT.
The way it is going to be calculated is that we are going to take the sum of all the yes votes multiplied by the conviction which will result in the effective voting power. The 100k DOT will be shared pro rata based on the amount of YES voting power contributed by each voter. If the referendum passes at the end of the referendum you will receive your reward in DOT directly on your address.
The purpose of this referendum is to incentivize people to participate in governance:
However this does NOT mean that you have to vote on ANY OTHER referendum besides this referendum to get the reward. We DO NOT want people to vote in a stupid way on other referendums just to get a reward. You only have to vote on THIS REFERENDUM to get your reward. The purpose of this referendum is to have people &ldquo;READY TO VOTE&rdquo; and NOT to &ldquo;FORCE THEM TO VOTE&rdquo;. Of course after you vote in favor or against this referendum since anyway your DOTs will be locked according to your conviction then you have no cost opportunity in voting for other referendums IF YOU WANT so but you have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO DO IT and this will NOT AFFECT YOUR REWARD IN ANY WAY.
TLDR:
<ul>
<li>If you want to earn your share of the 100K DOT vote YES</li>
<li>If you are an idealist and you think that participation in governance should not be rewarded vote NO</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

If you want Polkadot to thrive and governance to become more democratic please tell all your friends about this, invite them to force their custodians to support voting, withdraw from exchanges and/or pressure exchanges to support voting
If you want more details about the deep implications of this concept click the following 3 links in order:
<ol>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747244551931125816?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747504772561748182?s=20</a></li>
<li><a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1747649800227438732?s=20</a></li>
</ol>

The recipient of this payment is a multi-sig (5 of 8) managed by the following people:
Giotto TheeWeb3Patriot Cris Nguyen Dakota Strindbergman Sourabh Niyogi Jay Chrawnna LUI5
Our technical partner is Kirill (Azymologist) ex head of security of Parity. His company will be taking 5% commission in order to manage the payment to all the recipients.
If someone really doesn't like the idea they can propose referendum canceler or referendum killer. That just moves the game on a different arena. In case this happens if you like the idea you should vote NO to referendum canceler / killer and if you don't like the idea then you should vote YES
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
You can calculate that the multistig address is calculated correctly by using the following addresses [5/8]:
13HNWD2bmRumQBeZJioWEC94W2LXE2ARy8u1YQF93joTjWuY @InvArchitect 1EpEiYpWRAWmte4oPLtR5B1TZFxcBShBdjK4X9wWnq2KfLK @giottodf 121Rs6fKm8nguHnvPfG1Cq3ctFuNAVZGRmghwkJwHpKxKjbx @sourabhniyogi 13Ec62Cvw9jmPxA23EidSwASPs9X2Vohqv9RCogCfDvXC4c8 @crisng999 138Xe8CbBq1PwbCYmFTrsBpKc8HzymbGsi9K8bQLjXxCogV9 @TheeWeb3Patriot 14zsSB1tbxaeXBNPTBJCKgWxu2ZSMc6FpGZrXdJFmoUpZX8X @Strindbergman 12WWjrZGuVxyk5AyFeDGaN45J1FJ6MesXRxhmY41rhKxL961 @JayChrawnna 12pUXtKj7jD3yaxnK6TWKBsxS1JpLUceBKZKMPMH6RiZvjr4 @Luis_1x

Polkadot Watchdogs Governance Monthly Incentive Referendum #1 - VOTE NAY

Due to a technical error the previous referendum did not execute correctly. This is the same referendum with the proper instruction (proposecurator instead of acceptcurator)

https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/510

Games Bounty (retry)

Due to a technical error the previous referendum did not execute correctly. This is the same referendum with the proper instruction (proposecurator instead of acceptcurator)

https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/509

BD Bounty (retry)

Please note this is an experimental referendum, the beneficiary of this proposal is the treasury itself so no money is actually going to change hands

The purpose of this referendum is for the community to determine if they're willing to spend an amount up to 100k DOT in order to have an inscriptions generation and marketplace

You vote yes or no based on if you think it's worth spending that amount on the project

At the same time developers and teams can apply and basically submit their offer, it doesn't have to be 100k, it can be less, this is basically a competitive tender, you show to the community what you can deliver and the price using the comments

At the end of the referendum if it is positive a discussion will happen and then one of the teams can submit an actual referendum with themselves as beneficiary to get the payment and start developing

Inscriptions generator and marketplace (tender offer)

<a href="../bounty/41">https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/bounty/41</a>

Marketing Bounty Flex [#41] - VOTE NAY

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JUybLGp50_JqichzcGp79lY0JU18HdxVjn4yBxl122E/edit

Approval of curators for Bounty 38 (Games bounty)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wdKC1WB-nmQn3griOyXttWzD-cb3E4dRkNIBhAOdkK4/edit#heading=h.84nif08up60l

Approval of curators for Bounty 39 (BD bounty)

https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/bounty/39

BD Bounty [39]

UPDATE:
1) <a href="https://x.com/giottodf/status/1755499400598528458?s=20">https://x.com/giottodf/status/1755499400598528458?s=20</a>
2) Join the chat:
<a href="https://t.me/dotgamesbounty">https://t.me/dotgamesbounty</a>
Very important: Read the pinned message to understand exactly how it works when you join the chat
=============
====&gt; <a href="../bounty/38">https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/bounty/38</a>

Games Bounty [38]

Approval of curators for Bounty 33 (marketing bounty)


https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/402

Approval of curators for Bounty 33 (marketing bounty)

Marketing Bounty

I would like to request a tip of 1 million DED for my contributions so far 

This is also a test to find out if it's possible to spend DED and other exotic assets on open gov

Requesting 1M DED tip

The Games Bounty which was originally started as an experiment is proving to be extremely ineffective. The idea of having a large crowd of curators reach a super majority to decide on specific projects seems to be ineffective. On the other hand I observe that bounties with a small set of curators that are highly experienced (like for example DeFi Bounty) seem to be extremely effective 

Hopefully some new leadership will take over this bounty or if not it's better to abandon it completely

Removing curators from Games Bounty [38]

This bounty has always been very criticized as ineffective and self-serving. I see no apparent reason why there should be a specific Spanish bounty, then we should also have a Chinese bounty, Indian Bounty, French bounty, etc. Most of the activities covered by this bounty are already covered by other bounties like events bounty, marketing bounty, etc with much better management and oversight.

I think it's time to clean up this bounty because of its ineffectiveness and controversy in the ecosystem. We could also consider replacing the curators with more effective ones (I'm not saying that all of them are ineffective, I'm sure that some of them in the current bounty are very effective but they may be slowed down by ineffective ones, similar to old events bounty).

I'm happy to have a conversation with the current curators to understand if this bounty can be salvaged or it's better to terminate it since anyway all the actions it is undertaking already exist under more generic bounties

Instead of killing the bounty directly I am proposing to remove the curators so this is like a prelude to either replacing the curators or terminating the bounty in a second referendum

Removing curators from Spanish bounty

I was told that there is a possibility that the curators we are trying to remove could try to sabotage the bounty by not renewing the curators so that the batchall call that is supposed to remove curators and replace them will fail because if there are no curators then they cannot be removed. So I am running this parallel referendum which only proposes curators without removing them first in case they decide to sabotage the previous referendum. Both referendums should pass so that wether they sabotage or not they will be replaced

Replacing curators for event bounty 17 (backup)

The purpose of this referendum is to remove Zoe, Hutch and Mark which are refusing to remove themselves from the events bounty

Replacing curators for events bounty 17

VOTE NAY

vote NAY

update: max $1000 The purpose of this bounty is to quickly fund meetups for small amounts. The idea is quick turnaround when the amount required is small. The total limit per meetup for this bounty is $1000 Here is the current list of curators:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hNdflU8hB0J58Kv6VacVVItasnGga_JeOEuJ98eBkw4/edit?usp=drivesdk](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hNdflU8hB0J58Kv6VacVVItasnGga_JeOEuJ98eBkw4/edit?usp=drivesdk)

Anyone can still apply for curator by joining this chat: https://t.me/dotmeetups The only rule is that you cannot sign if your beneficiary of the payment