Threshold
An important part of the infrastructure needs to be supported, but there is some confusion regarding the proposals 419 and 420. They are asking for compensation for the same contributions, so you need to post a new proposal to clarify the spending and who will receive compensation.
Next time, please try to reduce these expenses if possible:
Edited
@Web3 edu and investment
@SUPERDUPONT
@PromoTeam Validator
[@RogerLe]
There seems to be some issue with accusations of double spends and funding without authorization.
This referendum seeks to fund collators on Encointer which is a system chain by vote. Like with other chains, we don't allocate funding to the team's collators, rather, only to those who secured slots permissionlessly or those who were elected (by governance) as invulnerables.
To make that even more simple, we don't cover funding to Parity or Encointer for the operation of any collators they operate. At the moment Parity runs two collators per chain and Encointer is operating four on its chain.
Funding under our budget starts from July and extends for six months, where as I believe Encointer's is retro.
As it relates to unauthorized approach, I think Malik is not well informed, which is usually the case. Brenzi approached the IBP and later system collators with news of Encointer's permissionless collation. He found that funding for same under the model of System collation to be a suitable match and adjusted their collator documents to make direct reference to this.
https://book.encointer.org/infrastructure-collator-setup.html#incentives
Knocking the referendum out of confirmation and so close to the end of the decision period was in poor taste. It is extremely disappointing to see the W3F's delegates (Decentralized Voices) participate in such an action against a programme that's well established and has benefited the chain directly. More-so I expected better understanding from Superdupont and Alex who operate nodes themselves.
Was there an attempt to raise the concern with the proposer or in the direction channel?
Edited
@HqRcfhH8VXMhuCk5JXe28WMgDDuW9MVDVNofe1nnTcefVZn
Thank you very much for the clarification, it is clear now, we would vote AYE for sure if they resubmit, the comment and concern we have left under the proposal is not answered for more than a week, and we didn't know that we should raise the concern in the direction channel, since normally we just communicate under the proposal here.
Hello, on behalf of the AIWeb3 DAO (the most vibrant Chinese community within the Polkadot ecosystem, with the mission to amplify the voice of the Chinese-speaking community and support Chinese content creators, ensuring it plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of Polkadot), we have discussed this proposal on twitter space but we still have a little bit questions, such as the relationship between this proposal and the 420, is there any duplicate part? We sincerely invite you to join our Twitter Space which is held every Tuesday at 10 AM (UTC+8) on our official Twitter: https://x.com/aiweb3dao. Please join our Telegram group if you have any questions, English TG group: https://t.me/aiweb3dao_eng and Chinese TG group: https://t.me/aiweb3dao
您好，我代表AIWeb3 DAO，这个波卡生态中最具活力的中文社区，旨在放大中文社区的声音，支持中文内容创作者，确保其在塑造波卡未来中发挥重要作用。
我们经过初步讨论，对这个提案还有一些不理解的地方，特地邀请你们参加我们的Twitter空间是每周二上午10点（UTC+8）， 在我们的官方推特：https://x.com/aiweb3dao. 。如有任何问题，请加入我们的Telegram讨论：英文Telegram https://t.me/aiweb3dao_eng ， 中文 TG group: https://t.me/aiweb3dao。