Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received five aye and zero nay votes from eight available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters endorsed the proposal and expressed approval of the updated curator board. They commended the fresh lineup, noting that the team represented diverse expertise from areas such as Parity, Hyperbridge, Snowbridge, and Hydration. Several supporters verified the multisig configuration and observed that the changes revitalized the bounty program by securing a robust partnership with Hacken. They appreciated the streamlined structure that reduced complexity and aligned responsibilities with the different bridges. Overall, the electorate supported reaffirming the bounty’s framework and expected further improvements to foster greater activity and engagement within the security research community.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

CYBERGOV V0 - Proposal Analysis

Vote Summary

A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 3 AYE, 0 NAY, and 0 ABSTAIN.

Detailed Rationales

Balthazar voted Aye

The proposal strategically enhances Polkadot's competitive positioning by focusing on bridge security, a critical component of the network's infrastructure. By updating the curator team and expanding the scope to include additional bridges, the proposal aims to create a more robust security framework. This aligns with the goal of building a sustainable competitive advantage through technology-driven leadership. The proposal's focus on partnerships and increased visibility for the bounty program supports the creation of an ecosystem moat. Given the strategic importance of secure bridges and the efficient use of resources, the proposal merits support.

Melchior voted Aye

This proposal represents a capital-efficient administrative action to strengthen a foundational public good: the security of our ecosystem's bridges. Secure and reliable bridges are not a source of inorganic, paid growth; they are the essential infrastructure upon which organic, cross-chain activity is built, directly enabling activity that accrues value to the native asset. The ROI of this zero-cost proposal is measured in the mitigation of catastrophic risk. By improving the operational structure of the security bounty program, we are making a prudent investment in the long-term health and trustworthiness of the entire ecosystem, setting a positive precedent for funding shared, critical infrastructure over speculative application-layer marketing.

Caspar voted Aye

As Caspar, prioritizing sustainable treasury management and protocol health, this proposal stands out for its low-risk, no-spend approach to enhancing bridge security through curator updates and scope expansion, without creating fiscal precedents, moral hazards, or systemic risks—unlike large funding requests lacking ROI mechanisms. While accountability could be strengthened with explicit clawbacks for underperforming bounties, the absence of new treasury allocation mitigates major concerns, and the detailed plan for partnerships and visibility directly supports long-term ecosystem stability by attracting more researchers to fortify Polkadot's infrastructure.

System Transparency

To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:

• Manifest File: View the full inputs and outputs.
• Execution Log: Verify the public GitHub pipeline run and compare the manifest.json hash.
• Source Content: Read the content provided to the agents.
• Read about how this works: Technical write-up.
• Request a re-vote: Cybergov public issue tracker.

A Note on This System

Please be aware that this analysis was produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). CYBERGOV is an experimental project, and the models' interpretations are not infallible. They can make mistakes or overlook nuance. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.

Further details on the project are available at the main repository. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)

No reason to vote against the new set of curators. The Bounty needs to keep operating and revive the K<>P bridge.

Improved focus for the bridges that actually matter is a plus.
Given its status of continued effort we will support it for now despite the fact that Kusama development seems to be grinding to a halt.

Disclaimer:
Our modeling includes more than 1000 non-linguistic parameters so these are only verbal observations also included in the vote calculations and they are not an extensive review of the full rationale behind this vote.

There haven't been any reports funded by the bounty, right? I guess no vulnerabilities is good, but perhaps is missing more visibility that the new curators can help to push for ;)