Hi @🏔 HELIKON 🏔

I would like to provide a little bit of context:

As an organisation we book income from fiat projects as short term reserves and DOT as long term reserves. Effectively we hold DOT. We think that is a good thing for the ecosystem.

I agree that projects without reserves that use DOT as working capital better receive a over collateralized stable coin backed by DOT. That is obviously positive for the ecosystem, but it is not our case.

Holding DOT as lont term reserves is what we mean about sharing risk and rewards with the community.

This is a thought that I raised with the foundation. While at the same time we are looking for ways to make DOT useful. We find it useful in our financial planning.

As for technical uncertainties, I am happy to answer any questions.

@🏔 HELIKON 🏔
@OpenSquare/Yongfeng
@EzioRed

FYI, and in full transparency:

I have reached to the foundation, with regards to DOT proposals being considered bad practice by DVs (you are not the only one). They showed surprise, and want to dig deeper. Don't understand how the sentiment came to be. They actually consider DOT requests in other programs a sign of commitment.

Since you see benefit for the ecosystem, and the issue weights on your vote, I would appreciate if you could check with your contact the foundation.

Hi @Valletech ,

To provide some context for the dislike to DOT proposals, there has been a few proposals (mainly events to be honest) that has caused budgeting problems and forced teams to come back to the treasury to make up the difference. This has caused a very strong reaction from the community that teams should ask for stablecoins to cover their expenses in such cases to avoid financial mishaps.

Obviously asking for DOT can be a sign of commitment, I still find this a weird hill to die on as anyone can easily just buy DOT with the stablecoin they receive and hold. But I personally appreciate the commitment and won't hold asking for DOT against teams given that it's for personal compensation (don't really care about whether they hold or not to be honest) as long as everything is budgeted clearly and expenses are covered for.

To follow up on my previous comment, I can see from the detailed report that you have some infra expenses (hosting etc.) which are fiat costs, i.e. the goods/services you purchase are priced in fiat. Even if you're bearing these costs yourself and holding the DOT you receive, I would suggest you ask for these fiat expense costs in stablecoins and ask for other compensation (manhours etc.) in DOT. I'm aware this sounds convoluted but in my opinion this is good practice to avoid upsets which have occurred in the past.

I'll still won't hold the DOT ask against the proposal when voting but just wanted to provide an explanation as you mentioned that some individuals at the foundation are somehow confused(?) and unaware of this practice which has been followed for better part of a year now I would say. I would recommend going through some of the event proposals and how some teams have mistimed :D their DOT/USD conversions and came back to the treasury to make up the difference since they seem to be in the mood for digging.

In total transparency I would like to relate the discussion I had with the W3F.
They see merit in our arguments for using DOT.
They see merit in in DVs arguments for using FIAT.
At first their position was that: let the ecosystem work it out.

But then we presented arguments asking them to position:

• Projects should have the right to use the right to use the token they are helping create. they agreed, that there should be a path for proposals to get DOT, even if they take some rules, such as no top-ups, and perhaps suggestions like yours: report items in DOT, etc.
• The merit of the project, in terms of benefit should not be tied to the token of its request. Meaning that, we vote if the project benefits the community... and then, perhaps there are rules, practices, so to say, that are accepted (like there are now: deposits, times, curves, etc).
• There was never a vote or even a WFC related to best practices in this sense, perhaps there should be and make it official.
• We also agreed in the fact that Fiat usage is organic, because projects benefit from stability. The ecosystem many also benefit from using stables, but it is perfectly compatible with some projects that also hold DOT. Is a different type of benefit.
• I pointed that the W3F is inconsistent in their position: some programs encourage projects to use DOT, while others discourage you from using DOT. They should have a consistent position, and that be known.
• If it turns out that Sables is the way to go, lets update documentation, and make it official.

They thanked us for pushing for clarity, and will raise the discussion internally for the purpose of aligning a consistent posture.

As for us, we are not anti-stable, we came to the referendum asking DOT and feeling pride for holding it. We were just surprised to have alienated potential supporters.

If its stables, so be it. But at least we are making an effort to get the community to clarify/make official its position on stables, which, anyway, it is an evolving field.

We still ask you for your vote, given the circumstances, and will adhere to whatever best practice that turns out to be. If it is stables, so be it.