https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1776
8 available members
🟢 0 • 🔴 1 • ⚪️ 2
✓ ≥37.5% required participation met
▶ Majority of all votes is abstain
⚪ ABSTAIN
No CoI reported. DV delegation exercised.
https://assethub-polkadot.subscan.io/extrinsic/28402000-2
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1776#6
8 available members
🟢 0 • 🔴 2 • ⚪️ 2
✓ ≥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/28406259-9
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1776#7
I appreciate the intent, but I have concerns.
This feels like a band‑aid that only addresses a small slice of our governance problems. It introduces reputation tracking and concentrates selection in the hands of a few individuals, which isn’t the best way to kick off a systemic change. Where is expertise accounted for? Will technical reviews be performed by domain experts or by generalist devs evaluating business cases?
I support improving OpenGov mechanics to raise the quality of funding decisions and reduce spend on non‑deliverables, but this approach as written doesn’t achieve that.
I can give you some of my time to talk it over. I'm abstaining because I'm working on a project for "opengov 2.0".
I am still in NAY.
i have the same position that I had in the V1.
Good initiative, but the guardians will be a new issue.
I would be glad to see a team working in this field, and I appreciate the budget review, and I'm confident that the team has the drive to proceed. However I think it would be the best to see the project kick off with the $38K budget for the first two milestones, possibly unscheduled upfront payment. The proposer's suggestion of making this proposal a first example of the application of the tool is a good idea, but I'd rather see the tool applied after the delivery of the first two milestones.
