https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1825
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/10921757-3
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1825#2
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/10923332-2
https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1825#3
I'm pretty sure we're not short of governance tooling at this moment. If the proposer is confident that this is a novel tool that would change the way the community does governance, or that would greatly benefit the decision making processes, they should first publish a working MVP/PoC and share it with the community. If it gets traction, then a grant may become a viable path. Nay for now.
Abstain due I'm from a team who develop governance tools. Considering current treasury status, it may not have a high priority.
I find any LLM based auto-gov tool to be at complete odds to the direction Polkadot is going with proof-of-persoonhood etc. I don't mind LLM chatbots to create summaries etc. but curating and presenting data with objectivity claims is a line I would rather not cross.
With that being said, I'll keep an eye on the questions from the community and interactions from the proposer before casting a final vote, abstain for now.
As I have said repeatedly, I believe we should stop funding tools to improve Polkadot governance. Polkadot governance is not Polkadot's ultimate goal.
