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.
Nice intent, but maybe roll out the first bits for less and see how it goes.
