Looking at the proposal document, the following points are a bit unclear to me and have raised several concerns in my mind:

With its forward-thinking government policies and focus on technology-driven growth, Andorra offers a unique environment to attract and nurture technological and blockchain projects Key trends include: RWA Tokenization: Billions in tokenized assets are being issued, Financial Sector Adoption: Major institutions are incorporating crypto into their services, exploring blockchain applications for loans, credit, and investment products. SME Engagement: Small and medium-sized businesses leverage decentralized technologies to innovate and remain competitive, creating opportunities for Polkadot to provide essential tools and infrastructure. The Spanish-speaking community, with over 480 million native Spanish speakers worldwide, represents a demographic with the most engaged audiences in the Web3 space.

As far as I can tell, Andorra (an extremely small country with a miniscule GDP), is a bit disingenuous to talk about in the same paragraph as the broader 480 million native Spanish speakers worldwide. I find it difficult to make a correlation between Andorran government adopting anything related to Polkadot having an effect on the worldwide native Spanish speaking community.

However, my main concern would be the "mishap" of early 2024 where one member of the IBERLABS team (Georgi) was one of the curators of the "Business Development Polkadot in Spain & Andorra". Towards the end of this bounty, 9826 DOT seems to have been mistakenly transferred to the curator team?

The funds, which were supposed to have been returned but as far as I can tell only 700 DOT was returned and rest was claimed as "salary backpayment".

Considering that this was around a time when DOT price was trending closer to $10, it seems like the lion share of the 15000 DOT bounty funds seems to have gone to the curators. I would be **extremely **interested in how this was justified and the outcome of the previous bounty before any more funds are awarded to IBERLABS who one of the curators of this bounty is a member of.

Hi @The Ionian , thank you for your questions. I’ll address both of your concerns below and hope to clarify them. However, if anything remains unclear, I’ll be more than happy to provide further explanation.

1. On Andorra’s Role in the Proposal and Its Relevance to the Spanish-Speaking Community

Andorra is a Spanish-speaking country with strong cultural and economic ties to Spain. While small in size, its system framework is significantly influenced by Spanish policy, and its favorable fiscal environment has attracted a substantial number of high-net-worth individuals and Spanish businesses that are established in Andorra. This positions Andorra as a strategic partner in any regional blockchain initiative.

Its scale also allows for faster deployment and measurable results, particularly given the trusted relationships we’ve already established locally. We view Andorra as an ideal environment to develop replicable PoC that can be scaled into other jurisdictions.

In fact, the fund with MoraBanc is just the beginning. The replication of this product is expected to be led by MoraBanc and executed in Spain through its institutional partner, BBVA. As such, the initiatives in Andorra are not isolated, they serve as a stepping stone for broader impact across the Spanish-speaking world, starting with Spain.

2. On the Previous Bounty Incident

To clarify, I was not a curator of the previous bounty , I served as an agent, alongside Laura and Albert.

The bounty was originally funded with 15,000 DOT, with 10% (1,500 DOT) allocated to the curators (Ezio, Nick Dunford, and Ben Shepard) for their oversight and curator role, and the remaining 13,500 DOT reserved for the agents, to be distributed as monthly compensation and performance-based rewards for lead generation, until the funds were fully utilized.

Due to external factors and the holiday season, there was a period of nearly three months in which the curators and agents were unable to coordinate a meeting. During this time, compensation and rewards were accrued but not disbursed, as the work had not yet been formally curated.

In this context, one of the curators mistakenly claimed the bounty funds to the proxy wallet instead of renewing the bounty. Upon realizing the error, the curators proactively consulted with several respected community members to determine the most transparent and responsible course of action. Two options were considered:

• Return the full amount to the treasury, and submit a new bounty proposal to settle the agents' compensation retroactively.
• Curate the work completed to date and distribute the corresponding funds to the agents directly from the proxy wallet, returning any surplus to the treasury.

Acknowledging both the mistake and the fact that the agents had not been compensated for over three months, the curators opted for the second approach. They proceeded to curate the delivered work, transfer the allocated funds to the agents, and return the remaining balance to the treasury.

Other detail to note is that our monthly salaries and lead-based rewards were fixed in DOT, regardless of its market price. As a result, there were months in which payments were received when DOT’s price was lower, and others when it was higher.