[SS] DOT #1767 - De-Risking the Treasury

13zn...P5ju

End

active

Description

https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1767

Voters are being more careful about funding projects.
Our project adds a safety feature called a clawback to protect the treasury.
This reduces risks and makes voters feel more secure.
A group of guardians will watch over payments to keep funds safe.
No money is paid upfront—only after milestones are completed.
The community can review and stop payments if needed.
We want to make the treasury safer and work better for everyone.
We hope to work with the Polkadot community to reach these goals.

Appendants

14d ago

Vote #1 submitted.
```
SMALL SPENDER

8 available members
🟢 1 • 🔴 2 • ⚪️ 0
✓ ≥37.5% required participation met
✘ Ayes ≤50.0% of non-abstain votes
▶ Aye/abstain conditions not met
🔴 NAY

No CoI reported. DV delegation exercised.
https://assethub-polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/28148263-3
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1767#4

Cast your votesingle

Results

Voters

one-person-one-vote

Information

IPFS

#QmPy4dQ

Members

Timestamp

Created

Oct 09 2025 14:34

Start date

Oct 09 2025 00:00

End date

Dec 08 2025 00:00

Votes·7

14Gn...YLEh

14Gn7SEmCgMX7Ukuppnw5TRjA7pao2HFpuJo39frB42tYLEh

Nay

I would like to elaborate on this point to be clear.
Personally, I am concerned about these types of proposals, where I see resources being allocated and development being focused around OpenGov, just OpenGov.
There is a marked tendency to invest significantly in tools and structures designed to enhance internal governance, which I believe ends up diverting our focus from the main objective: to encourage the construction of disruptive applications and use cases on Polkadot.
We are already seeing a proliferation of proposals for the integration of Artificial Intelligence for the interpretation of proposals, the establishment of foundations for legal compliance, and a proliferation of utilities whose primary purpose is to refine voting and deliberation mechanisms. While robust governance is essential, the saturation of redundant tools that converge on similar objectives makes me see a potential inefficiency in the use of funds.

1ZSP...vx6w

1ZSPR3zNg5Po3obkhXTPR95DepNBzBZ3CyomHXGHK9Uvx6w

Aye

This makes the chain easier to use at the human level. Agree that focus should be on growth over gov infrastructure generally, however I believe this is a good experiment to see if governance can improve.

15fT...yBzL

15fTH34bbKGMUjF1bLmTqxPYgpg481imThwhWcQfCyktyBzL

Nay

The proposed solution is possibly useful, however, even though the payouts are scheduled, I find the overall budget too high for a first full version. The initial submission should ideally cover around 3-4 months of work, after which the community can evaluate the return on investment and the team can submit another referendum for future work.

Another important concern is that the 2% take rate may end up too high, especially for the Big Spender track. It should ideally be structured as a curve, where the percentage decreases as the spend amount increases.

Nay for these reasons, I may reconsider.

14gM...deVb

14gMJV95zwxUsFEZDSC8mtBVifS6SypKJkfBKANkMsLZdeVb

Nay

I worry the idea about guardians may introduce new issues to the governance.

12Hi...E9N3

12His7t3EJ38tjdBbivUzWQeaNCLKfMqtKp1Ed3xHMyCE9N3

Nay

I find the concept flawed with the 2-5% fee strategy. I can easily see this degrade into nitpicking milestones and shit flinging from anonymous accounts.

I do like the platform and the way the information is presented, browsing upcoming spends but I think the ask is a bit too high for just that.

12s6...nE8h

12s6UMSSfE2bNxtYrJc6eeuZ7UxQnRpUzaAh1gPQrGNFnE8h

Nay

No preimage

167Y...TY9F

167YoKNriVtP4Nxk9F9GRV7HTKu5VnxaRq1pKMANAnmmTY9F

Nay

good initiative, sadly we need way more than that to evolve opengov to where it needs to be right now.

Discussions·0

No current comment data

Vote #1 submitted.```SMALL SPENDER

Vote #1 submitted.
```
SMALL SPENDER