Skip to main content

2024 July Polkadot OpenGov Report

Life is rarely black and white. How we read and reflect on an event is completely dependent on our perspective. The same thing can be both positive and negative, depending on where you focus. We need to be forward-thinking in assessing our achievements and mistakes. Only by doing this can we progress. Confidence in what we build is essential for continuous improvement and success. Because “we never lose, we either win or learn”.

Let Them Eat Croissants​

The annual flagship event of the ecosystem, Polkadot Decoded, was held in Brussels in July. This two-day event featured numerous panels and discussions, attracting significant attention from the community. However, the event was not without controversy. The old croissant debate resurfaced as attendees noted the lack of food in the event hall. Many were critical of the massive event hall, the general organization, overstaffing, and non-transparent spending. People questioned whether the budget of €1.3 million was justified, especially by claiming side events achieved success with much less funding. When we consider how affordable it was to provide ‘infinite’ beer in the event hall with the Chaos DAO proposal (less than €7k), we cannot disagree with this sentiment

The event faced a lot of community backlash immediately afterward, with both brutal and constructive criticisms among different social media platforms. The amount of negative reviews quickly led to changes in votes on the sub0 proposal, which was planned to be held by the same organizers. The proposal was rejected and the fate of the next sub0 is currently unknown.

There is now a growing sentiment that the Events Bounty should be responsible for organizing all future events to ensure better resource allocation and planning. You can check out our X space where we discussed Decoded and our vision for how the flagship events should be organized and how we can increase transparency and oversight of event organizations. Also, check out this amazing report by the Distractive, which covers an in-depth analysis of the event, summarizes community feedback with tangible suggestions, and lays out a roadmap for future events.

Ambassador Program​

The discussions around the structure of the ambassador program started on Polkadot Forum with various community members being critical of the current, semi-structured version. As all twenty-one slots got filled by the end of July, the program quickly turned into a battle royale system which further fuelled the disputes. After our dedicated X space on the program, Shawn Tabrizi published a document that outlines his vision and framework for the program’s future. He proposed changes to the current approach such as retroactive and results-based payment for ambassadors, a ranked structure similar to the fellowship with fewer head ambassadors, and an internal voting mechanism weighted by ranks. Community members like Paradox also support aspects of in-group voting systems and results-based payments instead of flat wages. Other mechanisms, like the old council election system, were also suggested where ambassadors are not elected once but are in constant election competition.

Currently, all 21 slots are full with one additional ambassador which makes the total number of elects 22. There is also another elected ambassador whose transaction failed due to a misconfiguration. The next runtime upgrade will set the maximum limit of head ambassadors on the collectives chain to 21. You can find the current status of the people in the program by checking this link.

Meanwhile, one of the elected ambassadors “Michiko Watanabe” was not responding to community questions and seemingly has not been attending the ambassador calls. As a result of increasing community callouts, the network’s first head ambassador Leemo thoroughly investigated and revealed that Michiko likely does not exist. After Michiko's ghosting, Leemo pushed for a referendum to remove Michiko from the program, which is currently passing unanimously. Since the ambassador program hasn't paid out any funds, no damage is done. Beyond that, This issue shows internal checks and balances are properly working and the ambassadors are perfectly capable of regulating themselves as long as there are people like Leemo on the helm.

We also want to repeat our call for a transparency statement from all the Head Ambassadors and ambassador candidates. They should publish details about how many jobs they currently have in the ecosystem, from which proposals they got funded, on which bounties they are actively engaged, and the public multisig accounts they are part of. Establishing this system will help the credibility of the ambassadors as well as the long-term accountability of the program.

Bounty Transparency​

One of the biggest discussions in July began with one of the ecosystem agents questioning the Autonomous Marketing Initiative (AMI) bounty handing out ‘sign-up bonuses’ to its curators. The issue quickly escalated into a broader debate where the bounty operator, Adam Steeber, posted a video to address the community concerns. As the drama unfolded, a referendum to close the AMI Bounty was submitted to OpenGov, which is currently passing but still has more than two weeks to finalize. The token holder votes will decide the fate of the AMI Bounty, but it's good to brainstorm on what it revealed and discuss the essence of the criticism more analytically.

The necessity of legitimate curator payments is crucial for maintaining the bounties. However, the issue reveals a consensus regarding results-based payment within the bounties. While the specific items billed to the AMI bounty faced heavy criticism, it's also fair to acknowledge that this hourly reporting system demonstrates strong transparency, which is rare in the ecosystem. Of course, the community should critically approach expenditures, but legitimate criticisms should not escalate into a lynch campaign. Otherwise, we could easily discourage transparency in the future.

The community must avoid mob mentality and focus on constructive negotiations to resolve issues. Mobs tend to form habits, and there are no winners in such situations. Negotiation and dialogue should always be preferred. Only by providing constructive criticism and through negotiations can we ensure transparency. Of course, transparency by itself is not sufficient and it should be supported by concise and periodical reporting practices, such as the recently published report from Polkadot Assurance Legion.

You can further check out our views on the AMI discussion and how we think the bounties should structure themselves by checking out our recent live YouTube session.

Notable Mentions​

Treasury Report: The OpenGov.Watch treasury report published at the end of June created a lot of noise as soon as July began. While some criticized handpicked words from it, we can proudly say it made the biggest news in the broader blockchain community that Polkadot has seen for a long time. Most arguments centered around the ‘misuse’ of treasury funds. However, similar to the AMI discussion, the key takeaway is the transparency and directness of the decision-making process within the Polkadot Network, which should be seen as a positive outcome in terms of broader web3 adoption.

Marketing Bounty: The latest request to refill the marketing bounty with 500k DOT is rejected by a small margin. In June, another proposal to continuously fund the marketing bounty over the next four years with automated payments was also rejected. Amidst discussions around the AMI bounty, a new discussion about starting a KOL bounty is initiated by Evan Thomas, who leads the Polkadot official X account.

Polkadot Official Live Sessions: There were two amazing live sessions by the Polkadot Official account during July. The first one explained the technical process of submitting a treasury proposal, featuring Bill Laboon and Leemo. The second session was an in-depth discussion on inflation adjustments on the DOT token. It is great to see head ambassadors joining these live sessions, and we encourage even more participation from all the ambassadors in the future.

OpenBD Working Group: Head Ambassador William initiated a periodical call series to organize BD efforts in the ecosystem. The first call had 25 participants, including parachain founders and ecosystem agents. The group discussed enhancing community links, strategic alignment, and operational efficiency. They emphasized the need for better knowledge sharing, showcasing success stories, and creating an ecosystem map. Upcoming calls will also be available for everyone to participate.

Office Hours: The concept of office hours is gaining traction across the ecosystem. Recently, the Events Bounty started holding weekly office hours open to the public. It is very beneficial in increasing participation and transparency if all the bounties continue this practice. You can subscribe to our governance calendar to get notified for all the different office hours and open calls about Polkadot Governance.

Follow OpenGov.Watch​