Hi everyone, I'd like to address your concerns.

In regards to @Yong Feng's comment

Just to clarify, our intention was never to treat the Treasury as an investor. In fact, we had removed the token return mention from our earlier proposal because it was misunderstood as implying a valuation. We only reintroduced it after several DVs and community members including during my Office Hours call with Permanence DAO where Kukabi also suggested it, specifically asked for a revenue-share model to be included.

In response to Ezio’s comment,

I completely understand the concern. Many projects have misused Treasury funds, and that naturally creates doubt, even when serious builders come forward.

That said, we’ve been building in the Polkadot ecosystem from the start, right from PBA to active collaborations with other projects. This is also our final Treasury proposal. We’ve stayed committed throughout and remain so.

It’s important to note that the token return wasn’t presented as the main value, we included it only after community feedback. The real value Cyborg brings to Polkadot is much deeper. We believe the ecosystem needs real businesses to prove its capabilities beyond just tools and public goods.

Cyborg Network isn’t just another crypto project. We’re a web2.5 bridge bringing real-world adoption of web3 through usable infrastructure for web2 users.

Hi Kukabi,
We’ve already updated the proposal to include a revenue-share model, as you suggested. Just wanted to make sure you saw the latest version, happy to clarify anything further if needed.

Hi , The Ionian
Appreciate the thought!
But, we’ve never viewed the Treasury as an investor in our case. Any token allocation was only included to align long-term incentives after community suggestions not for ROI purposes.