After the submission of [referendum 112](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/democracy/referendum/112), seeking to increase the validator active set to 500, the community discussed the possibility and the need of Polkadot increasing the validators set. 

Feedback from the proposals indicates two points:

- There's interest with increasing the number of validators of the active set **but with increments**;

- There needs to be some analysis on the effects of the increase to ensure there's no security concerns.

The results indicate that participating members would like to increase the active set to 400 with increments of 5 per era. They believe that this increase would not compromise the security of the chain and allow for natural (opportunistic) leveling as the set increases. Core developers have also agreed on similar increases by value: 

“With increasing to 500, the amount of DOT needed to acquire a validator will sharply reduce from 1.7 mDOT now, to just around 370 kDOT. We think this is overall unavoidable, but we would personally suggest first increasing to 400 and re-evaluate”

This proposal aims to increase the active set of validators by 5 per era, for 20 eras. The call also executes a one-time increase by 3 to reach 400 validators by the end of the 20 eras. Note that this initiative is submitted on behalf of a coalition of 1kvP validators.

- Preimage Hash: `0xbacad43f5467717cb1edfba6317524dc1d24fe3246afbe6a8cea7ed5fae1ba5f`
- Call data: [HERE](https://polkadot.js.org/apps/?rpc=wss%3A%2F%2Fpolkadot-rpc.dwellir.com#/extrinsics/decode/0x1a0408070a0c010401000000014038000014000000fe070a14)

Please note this proposal is submitted as an external motion: meaning if/after Council approves, the community will vote in referenda queue for the final decision. 

Make sure to review and vote!

1kvP Validators Initiative: Increase Validators Active Set to 400

Dear community,
 

I would like to engage you in discussions related to adjustments of the following staking parameters:
 

1. Increasing the minimum number of tokens to create a nomination pool from `200 DOT` to `500 DOT`
2. Increasing the bond size required to become a direct nominator from `100* DOT` to `200 DOT`
3. Enabling fast unstake on Polkadot
4. Increasing the number of validator candidates from `1200 `to `1500` in anticipation of an increase in the active set of validators

 
**The threshold for direct nomination**
 
At the time of writing, the minimum bond size for an active nominator is `293.7 DOT`. This number is quickly increasing leaving a staggering `23,000+` inactive nomination bonds. This increase has also resulted in some nomination pools becoming stagnant as the requirement to create a nomination pool is `200.00 DOT`. To address these issues I am proposing that we increase the minimum bond size for a direct nominator to `200.00 DOT` and to also enable fast unstaking on Polkadot. This combination of actions would discourage creation of new nominator bonds which would not reasonably be eligible for active nomination. Fast unstaking would then allow some of these `23,000+` inactive bonds to quickly reclaim their funds.
 
I am also suggesting that we increase the minimum number of tokens to create a nomination pool to `500 DOT`. This would guarantee that new pools would be participants in staking. It is important that nomination pools provide stakers with a route for active staking and we should support this with adequate thresholds.
 
As we're issuing adjustments to the staking configurations, I would like to take the opportunity to also increase the number of validator candidates from `1200` to `1500` in anticipation of an expanded validator set.
 
Regards, 
Will | Paradox

Discussion on adjusting Nomination Configuration

<p 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; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial;">This bounty is primarily designed to fund Collators on System Parachains with a fixed fiat monthly fee of US$300.00.
<p 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; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial;">Full details on the genesis of this bounty can be found&nbsp;<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2T1Nx90HkSAYF_CaOPLG-o3LS7h_QAa2WLDdcSJMs0/edit">here</a>
<p 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; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial;">Details on monthly spends can be found&nbsp;<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/115s_6a6aMQaQFRKEr9w6XWdZ5aNxnkqwi7H0-8SKLcI" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>

&nbsp;

System Parachains Collator Bounty

Dear community,
I would like your support to fund an account used for common good activities with 1000 DOT (the maximum) afforded to the track. The account is used in-part for activities such as:
<ul>
<li>Paying out staking rewards for several validators and their nominators</li>
<li>Refunding submission and decision deposits for several referenda on Polkadot and the Collective chains</li>
</ul>
The account was <a href="https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/519">previously funded by the Treasury</a> 8 months ago and I've been keeping it afloat with funds from my various acounts. There are now many more payouts per era as more validators are active and it is becoming difficult to keep up with payments (out of pocket).
It is worthwhile noting that the account has <a href="https://polkadot.subscan.io/account/153NYWsbLZmFRZbuUk1sYoJPkYXQTiR3Efa5u5CohWQBKKr2?tab=transfer">no outbound transfers</a> and most (if not all) expenses on the account are transactional in nature; this means that 80% of the fees are returned to the treasury.
Kind Regards, Will | Paradox | ParaNodes

Tip for an account used for Referendum Deposit Clean-up and Validator Payout Bot

Dear community,
Thank you for your assistance with helping to close and refund deposits associated with governance 1.0 proposals. When <a href="73">the proposal</a> was initiated there were already four (4) proposals already seeking reimbursement, to avoid double spends these refunds were excluded from the batch.
Now that these referenda have concluded without success I am inclined to also request refunds for their deposits to be equitable.
This proposal seeks to refund CCTF (123LuJKS65HaBbLSdDS46ByeC7bvQwA1iUhTpmjigQAfUKpK) with 360.20&nbsp;DOT for their <a href="../treasury/288">original proposal</a>. The rejected proposal can be found <a href="46">here</a>.
Disclaimer &amp; Context: This particular effort to refund participants is limited in scope to those who had proposals on the spend queue at the onset of Open Gov on Polkadot. A coordinated effort was required to avoid potential duplicate returns of deposits. If you feel aggrieved due to a proposal outside the scope of this exercise I suggest that you open an independent referenda.
&nbsp;

Refunding CCTF's GOV1 Treasury Spend Deposit

Dear community,
Thank you for your assistance with helping to close and refund deposits associated with governance 1.0 proposals. When <a href="73">the proposal</a> was initiated there were already four (4) proposals already seeking reimbursement, to avoid double spends these refunds were excluded from the batch.
Now that these referenda have concluded without success I am inclined to also request refunds for their deposits to be equitable.
This proposal seeks to refund RADIUMBLOCK.COM (13GtCixw3EZARj52CVbKLrsAzyc7dmmYhDV6quS5yeVCfnh1) with 500&nbsp;DOT for their <a href="../treasury/284">original proposal</a>. The rejected proposal can be found <a href="34">here</a>.
Disclaimer &amp; Context: This particular effort to refund participants is limited in scope to those who had proposals on the spend queue at the onset of Open Gov on Polkadot. A coordinated effort was required to avoid potential duplicate returns of deposits. If you feel aggrieved due to a proposal outside the scope of this exercise I suggest that you open an independent referenda.
&nbsp;

Refunding Radium Block's GOV1 Treasury Spend Deposit

Dear community,

With an upcoming runtime upgrade we should see the decommissioning of Governance 1.0 on the Polkadot network.  Associated with this are several unlocks of deposits including those associated with Treasury Spend Proposals.  There are already several teams who have requested immediate return of their deposits via tips or spend proposals on OpenGov or tips on Gov 1.0.  

This referendum seeks to reduce the number of refund requests and prevent double spends by:

- Slashing treasury deposits already returned to proposers 
- Slashing treasury deposits for proposers who have pending OpenGov proposals requesting or incorporating same
- Slashing Gov 1.0 tips and treasury deposits for applicable proposers. The proposers would have their treasury funding and tip deposit returns to their respective accounts
- Treasury deposits would be slashed and refunded to all those not matching the criteria to any of the above

The list of recipients was determined with collaboration with Otar who been keeping track of such refunds.  

Regards,
 


Rejecting Gov1.0 Treasury Proposals and Facilitating Bond Reimbursement where applicable

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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).




Nomination Pool Incentives - Fixing an issue with Motion 339

Dear Council member,

I am proposing this tip to my fellow One Thousand Validator participant @ccris02:matrix.org for the submission and acceptance of 250 phishing sites during the month of May.  Cris is also known as net-null on git and manages the validator node Vegas_life_main/Vegas_life_main on the Kusama network.  

During a DM he mentioned that he submitted 250 phishing sites to the respective repository in May alone which I found incredible.  He has a systematic approach which I have asked him to post personally.

The pull requests are as follows:

1. 04 May 2021 - 25 sites - https://github.com/polkadot-js/phishing/pull/297
2. 05 May 2021 - 113 Sites - https://github.com/polkadot-js/phishing/pull/298
3. 09 May 2021 - 23 Sites - https://github.com/polkadot-js/phishing/pull/310
4. 12 May 2021 - 89 Sites - https://github.com/polkadot-js/phishing/pull/322

Best Regards,


For the submission of 250 phishing sites during the month of May using a systematic approach.

Glad tidings council member,

I am proposing this tip to Gilbert Bassey, known as GB on discord and an ambassador candidate. It is in my opinion that the article promotes an aspect of the eco-system that is overlooked as many have their eyes glued toward staking.

The wording, structure and analogies kept my attention and encouraged further reading. This guide can be understood by persons of all levels of knowledge and sheds good light on the Polkadot project.

Para

Well written and well presented article on Polkadot Governance

Dear community,

The Dolpha team has un-noted their preimage and [issued a public statement](https://x.com/TheDolpha/status/1733237071614029896?s=20) that they're retracting their proposal.

Referendum 341 remains highly in favour with 16DG's support and given the potential risk that anyone can resubmit the preimage I am requesting support to officially cancel the referendum.

Regards,
Will | Paradox | Ecosystem Janitor / Night watchman.





Cancel Ref 341 - Dolpha.com seeking 150,000 DOT 

Dear community,

This referendum gives the community an opportunity to prevent the enactment of referendum 265 under unscrupulous conditions.   I've opted to cancel as opposed to kill which does not slash the proposers deposit.  Imo, there is room (though little) to believe that this is not a scam or joke and under these circumstances one should not be punished for submitted a bad/unpopular referendum.

[Referendum 265](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/266) seeks to acquire 999,999 DOT for the purpose of supporting a meme coin $PINK to "shill less tech and more pink".  

Regards,
Will | Paradox | Ecosystem Janitor

Cancel Referendum 265 - Funding 999,999 DOT for meme coin in the name of Polkadot Marketing.

Dear community,

This is an OpenGov submission of [motion 420](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/council/motion/420) to help the Matrix.org foundation with upstream funding.  The motion was originally submitted by council member Wei after the launch of OpenGov which may have attributed to lower than expected council voter turnout.  Wei has articulated his argument for funding [here ](https://forum.corepaper.org/post/!AZvsRzlxPPMqKlMwMB:pacna.org) and I agree with the testimonies quoted in the write-up.

- For details -> [https://forum.corepaper.org/post/!AZvsRzlxPPMqKlMwMB:pacna.org](https://forum.corepaper.org/post/!AZvsRzlxPPMqKlMwMB:pacna.org)
- Proof of address as shared by Wei is as follows -> [http://web.archive.org/web/20230610014530/https://matrix.org/](http://web.archive.org/web/20230610014530/https://matrix.org/)

I'll leave it Wei and patrons to keep abreast with any discussions.

Regards,

OpenGov submission of Motion 420 - Upstream funding Matrix.org Foundation

Dear community,
I present this proposal on the authorization of the curators of bounty 31.
This proposal seeks to continue funding of Public RPC Providers for the period of six months plus an additional month's contingency. Funding is issued to bounty 31 which awards vendors for RPC services on the Polkadot relay-chain as well as its system parachains. The total cost for such provision is USD$171,951.34, which represents $22,141.98 per month without contingency and administrative expenses.
Bounty 31 adopts an tender based procurement model in which service providers bid on requirements as set-out by the curators. The tender requirements are aligned to ecosystem needs and can scale up/down depending on usage. Tenders are scored and the highest scoring providers receive funding. Attention is also being placed on quality of service and should service providers fail to meet said quality-standards they will be penalized or lose funding altogether.
This approach has seen a reduction with independent funding proposals for such services and steering of providers to a "market rate".
Further details can be found <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WV7n5HVKtO5s0ub6g4uEQAN4Y7SRNcu56QYFXPgN15I/edit?tab=t.0">here</a>
Kind Regards, Will | Paradox | ParaNodes.io

Funding for Public RPC Providers via Bounty 31

Dear community,
This referendum seeks to re-propose a curator for the Public RPC Bounty as a consequence of the previous curators not renewing their intent. This resulted in providers not being paid for services rendered in November and December 2024.
After internal evaluation it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the bounty to have a new curation team. It is anticipated that the new curation team would aid with improving reporting, stakeholder engagement, timely payouts, SLA reviews and transparency of the procurement process.
The proposed curators are Frankywild, Coinstudio, Tim Janssen, Cappex and Pastaman. As a team they were recently handed over curation of a similar bounty in place on Kusama. In their short term they have already filled many of the gaps as identified earlier and are working assiduously towards putting administrative processes in place for future efficient running&rsquo;s. For those unfamiliar with the bounty here&rsquo;s a TL;DR:
The Public RPC Bounty sought provide RPC services to the public in a structured and price controlled manner. Before the bounty RPC providers would individually invoice the treasury for services rendered. The bounty took an analytical approach of determining the RPC needs for the ecosystem, the number of providers required for adequate coverage and putting this scope out for public tender. Tenderers need only prove their technical capabilities to be eligible participants.
While there&rsquo;s need for improvement with some of the administrative aspects, the bounty (imo) was successful with improving the value of RPC service delivery to the community.
Kind Regards, Will | Paradox | The guy they should have listened to

Proposing new curators for the Public RPC Bounty (31)

Dear community,

I would like your support with a common-good initiative that I've embarked up to:

- Refund decision deposits on Polkadot and Collectives
- Refund applicable submission deposits on Polkadot and Collectives
- Help validators who are part of, or originated from the 1KV with their validator payouts



These initiatives are currently funded by myself at a cost of between 10-15 DOT/mth. I intend to expand on the number of validators who are supported by the payout bot from \~10 to 50 in the first tranche. Validators who are interested can signup by submitting a PR to have their stashes added to [this file](<https://github.com/paradox-tt/CrunchPayees/blob/main/polkadot_payees.txt>).

Projecting a budget can be difficult as the number of referenda varies per month and the cost for a validator payout also varies with the number of active nominators. Utilizing a linear model, I can assume that at full capacity, the service would amount to 50 DOT/mth. Providing that there isn't significant push-back I would seek top-ups with an 8 week notice for continuity of service.

The address used for payouts is `153NYWsbLZmFRZbuUk1sYoJPkYXQTiR3Efa5u5CohWQBKKr2` and it is the recipient of such funding. Feel free to examine the accounts transactions.

I operate such a service on Kusama and it is very [well subscribed](<https://github.com/paradox-tt/CrunchPayees/blob/main/Payees.txt>). It is also funded by tips that I've integrated into experiments conducted on-chain that we now benefit from (as norms) on Polkadot.

- [Using batch calls for treasury spends](<https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/58>)
- [Vulnerability discovery and general findings from the above](<https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/2151>)
- [Using the treasurer tracks to manage Gov1 constructs](<https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/97>)
- [Using the scheduler on the treasurer track to approve and fund bounties with one vote](<https://kusama.polkassembly.io/referenda/323>)



This referendum seeks 250 DOT (2500000000000 planks) issued to the payee `153NYWsbLZmFRZbuUk1sYoJPkYXQTiR3Efa5u5CohWQBKKr2`.

Regards,

Will \| ParaNodes \| Ecosystem Janitor and other things

Tip for Common Good Referendum Deposit Clean-up and Validator Payout Bot

Dear Community,

With the anticipated passing of referendum 363 (in 9 days), we would like to take the next step of assigning a Curator.  This referendum is being submitted ahead of the passing of referendum 363 as we would like to have the Curator in place around the end of January to facilitate timely payouts for said period.

The proposed curators are:

- FrankyWild (frankywild#8573)
- Tim Jansen (Tim Janssen (Won't DM)#8682)
- Husni (pastaMan#9738)

The multi-sig will require 2/3 signatures and is configured as a pure-proxy. These individuals are members of the System Parachain Collator bounty on Kusama.  They have also met the requirements as described within section 5.2 of the [original proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2T1Nx90HkSAYF_CaOPLG-o3LS7h_QAa2WLDdcSJMs0/edit?usp=sharing) have been executing their responsibilities with diligence.

Regards,

Assigning a Curator to Bounty 32 (System Parachain Collator Bounty)

Dear community,
Thank you for your assistance with helping to close and refund deposits associated with governance 1.0 proposals. When<a href="73"> the proposal </a>was initiated there were already four (4) proposals already seeking reimbursement, to avoid double spends these refunds were excluded from the batch.
Now that these referenda have concluded without success I am inclined to also request refunds for their deposits to be equitable.
This proposal seeks to refund MIDL.DEV (13EAhGcpe93mqSFZQrQ4P2cfpdAo5txWc5UQVTfEKDoqZjhw) with 212.8825 DOT for their <a href="../treasury/274">original proposal</a>.&nbsp; The rejected proposal can be found <a href="10">here</a>.
Disclaimer &amp; Context: This particular effort to refund participants is limited in scope to those who had proposals on the spend queue at the onset of Open Gov on Polkadot. A coordinated effort was required to avoid potential duplicate returns of deposits. If you feel aggrieved due to a proposal outside the scope of this exercise I suggest that you open an independent referenda.

Refunding MIDL.DEV's GOV1 Treasury Spend Deposit

Dear community,
Thank you for your assistance with helping to close and refund deposits associated with governance 1.0 proposals. When <a href="73">the proposal</a> was initiated there were already four (4) proposals already seeking reimbursement, to avoid double spends these refunds were excluded from the batch.
Now that these referenda have concluded without success I am inclined to also request refunds for their deposits to be equitable.
This proposal seeks to refund PINK NODE (13EAhGcpe93mqSFZQrQ4P2cfpdAo5txWc5UQVTfEKDoqZjhw) with 172.387 DOT for their <a href="../treasury/246">original proposal</a>. The rejected proposal can be found <a href="40">here</a>.
Disclaimer &amp; Context: This particular effort to refund participants is limited in scope to those who had proposals on the spend queue at the onset of Open Gov on Polkadot. A coordinated effort was required to avoid potential duplicate returns of deposits. If you feel aggrieved due to a proposal outside the scope of this exercise I suggest that you open an independent referenda.
&nbsp;