In reviewing recent results, especially in light of the significant activity and attention surrounding these efforts, it is clear that the impact may not have fully matched the expectations held at Polkadot. While the intentions stated in the proposal are clear, it appears that the resulting benefits have been concentrated in a limited scope, without generating the broader, high-level ecosystem-wide impacts that we had hoped to see. This observation leads me to reassess the current operational framework. I believe there is a high possibility that the existing structure is not optimally equipped to foster widespread positive outcomes or ensure a more equitable distribution of value within the ecosystem.

Supportive of having an ambassador program, but I believe the budget increase presented here is too high given the accomplishments and management/leadership of the first phase. Recommend delivering exceptional results on a more modest budget as the next step. Additionally, it seems like more should be done to win over broad community support rather than the combative back and forth that is in the discourse so far.

this program feels more like a distraction than something truly helpful. the proposed budget ask is alarmingly high and gives the impression of trying to secure support in ways that don’t feel right. leadership hasn’t shown strong direction or inspired confidence, and the onboarding approach brings in too many people who aren’t clearly contributing. it’s pulling from the treasury without much to show for it. at this point, it makes sense to pause and refocus on efforts that actually support builders and bring value to the ecosystem.

We share the concerns of the other members who voted Nay. We think the "payment" component should be separate from the Ambassador Program. In our opinion (which could be wrong), the payment component should be on-chain slots where people can apply to (PIF but on chain).

The funding (and possibly the complete management too) of the program should transition into an on-chain model. I appreciate the efforts so far, but the main leadership and supervision should be left to the community, which can happen through on-chain enforcement, in a more efficient and continuous manner, rather than evaluating after long periods.

While the idea of an ambassador program has merit, the proposed budget feels disproportionately high relative to its demonstrated impact. Nay for now.

Supportive of an Ambassador program, but not sure if this is exactly the right model. Abstaining- and hope that it can become stronger with feedback from the community.

I agree with HELIKON's opinion, but I will be cautious even it will be a on-chain model. The key problem is what and how this problem solve problems. Currently it's not convincing.

I have absolutely zero idea why the ambassador program and the people who spearhead it insist on these grandiose programs and onboarding close to a hundred people with very little direction. Just start slow with a few people on areas that clearly need support, keep to a tight budget and do actual work. This program is being treated like a meal ticket right now, very strong fremdschämen when watching this whole thing unfold.

I support the fellowship and will like to see it grow into something meaningful, we do need a leader in this front.