Implement pallet_content

Rejected
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
256KSM
Status
Decision14d
Confirmation
12hrs
Attempts
0
Tally
36.5%Aye
50.0%Threshold
63.5%Nay
Aye
134.05KKSM
Nay
233.25KKSM
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.17%
27.97KKSM
Issuance
16.54MKSM
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.
Call
Metadata
Timeline4
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments

The ask is reasonable and it's great to see proposals with technical developments like an open source pallet. It will be interesting if you get to include this on a "content parachain", any plans to launch your own chain? You can also try to bring this up to get it included in the PolkadotSDK but I doubt Parity will accept external pallets as they would need to maintain them. Good luck with the development and looking forward to see some apps using this!

Reply
Up

Thanks @olanod ! Yes the goal is to have many content parachains. I'm really excited to build out the community.

Reply
Up

I'll be making a presentation about pallet_content on Monday on AAG!

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

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

The Small Spender track requires 50% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes 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 one aye and one nay votes from eight available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

One proponent expressed strong enthusiasm for the proposal, noting its potential to create a decentralized content management system that could benefit both ecosystems and emphasizing its low cost. In contrast, another participant raised technical concerns, questioning whether the proposed implementation would store the compressed content directly on-chain or merely an IPFS hash. That individual acknowledged the feasibility of building a comprehensive management system using the Polkadot SDK but argued that the proposal did not offer a significant direct benefit to Kusama and might be more suitable for a grant application, reflecting a clear divergence in perspectives on its overall contribution.

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 V Delegate

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

Reply
Up

Le Nexus voted AYE!

It’s a small ask with an interesting upside. Kusama is here to try bold experiments and this pallet is exactly the kind of thing worth trying, even if success isn’t guaranteed.

Le Nexus invites you to join our DV Office English channel on Discord to engage in conversation about OpenGov proposals.

Reply
Up

Just like we wouldn't recommend any EVM team to build on Moonriver, we at the present time don't recommend building on Kusama due to the lack of support, interest and funding. Kusama currently lacks a role since its discontinuation as the test/alpha chain and it requires a better and renewed approach to consider funding. Teams should only consider funding from Kusama if it's directly provided by the W3F or the services provided are sorely needed for it to work (explorers, wallets, RPC, continued development). Even the latter will be judged case by case.

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.

Reply
Up
Request
256KSM
Status
Decision14d
Confirmation
12hrs
Attempts
0
Tally
36.5%Aye
50.0%Threshold
63.5%Nay
Aye
134.05KKSM
Nay
233.25KKSM
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.17%
27.97KKSM
Issuance
16.54MKSM
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.