I do appreciate the intention of this counterproposal, as well as laying out a strategy, step by step, and a proposal, for example, to price the cost of the security from at least 11 different validators. This would make sense, at least theoretically.

However, I'm voting NAY because although I like the idea of an independent Kusama, I have serious concerns as to who would actually be the team of validators and technical profiles who would maintain the network. 

Additionally, as of now, this referendum does not have a Decision Deposit placed.

Regarding the decision deposit we had no prior notice that the other four were going on chain - our KSM was locked and since the Wish for Change track executes no code and is just for signalling it was preferable to have the 5 choices run in parallel. Adding a delay of a day or two added unnecessary effort - especially since the JAM Prime proposals studiously ignore a prior agreed Kusama WFC, so clearly optics don't matter that much.


[@Birdbrain](DJe2JJvcMNjxjkhi3UsoNZwSaYnHQqQB7AAavEAz1wDrJGh-kusama) thanks for the answer. Well technically Emiel's [2nd paper forum post](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/a-proposal-for-a-kusama-future-on-jam-prime/18683?u=florentina57) did announce a WFC direction after the 4 week discussion period they proposed, but regardless, just curious, do you or anyone from the birdbrain community plan on placing the DD?

[@Birdbrain](DJe2JJvcMNjxjkhi3UsoNZwSaYnHQqQB7AAavEAz1wDrJGh-kusama) GG on your experimental initiative to crowfund the DD, glad your counterproposal WFC is getting a real chance now that the decision period has started.

I’m voting NAY on all of them for now.

I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Before committing Kusama to a long-term infrastructure decision, we should first figure out what we actually want Kusama to become.

What are our real needs? What’s the economic vision for KSM? What kind of ecosystem are we trying to build?

The [work shared](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/proposal-discussion-adapting-kusama-to-demand-and-its-jam-future/17141/10?u=rom1.io) by Lederstrumpf on validator and core reductions is a good example of why we need to look at actual demand and decentralization before making these decisions.

I’m not against JAM Prime, an independent JAM, or any other approach, but I think we’re missing the bigger picture here.

Infrastructure should follow a vision, not the other way around.

[@xcRom1](EqZG45vbcbgCyEF15jrcZwsThNEu4gCAdbGjJTacV9rDnCs-kusama) I definitely agree with you in principle, and as I've voiced before, more than once: ["Why are we already benchmarking and pricing something that we don’t even know if we need?"](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/a-proposal-for-a-kusama-future-on-jam-prime/18683/27?u=florentina57) and that I believe we first need an ecosystem strategy before making infrastructure or other technical decisions.

However, I am also convinced that stalling further is not the way either. We clearly have a very limited number of Kusama community members who even voice their opinion on the future of the network, let alone vote for proposals that have been put forward. So unless there is a more convincing proposal that realistically will help us advance, I am keeping my AYE vote on [671](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/671) and [672](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/672) and NAY on [676](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/676). 

If 671 goes through, we would still need dotDAO and the Technical Fellowship to agree to it but most importantly, we need a strategy. For this, we will need to use indeed, everything available already, such as Lederstrumpf's data you quoted above, the recent Kusama bounty cleanup you pushed forward and any other data to understand what exists on Kusama today, what we want Kusama to become and how to optimize the use of the Kusama assigned cores on JAM Prime (especially if they have already been financed by ~50% of the 10M DOT the W3F has committed to Kusama). 

Whether this WFC or any of the 4 JAM Prime proposals pass, or if neither one of them do, I am willing to give it a try and contribute, at my level, with whoever else is still around or willing to come onboard and interested in developing such strategy. 

In the meantime I support the further reduction of the Kusama active set initiated with ref [655](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/655) as it is aligned with sizing the infra to current needs.

Hello, I have enough votes to flip this referendum.
I am unsure how this proposal will help to improve the future of KSM. I see no new nor useful apps on Kusama. I see no DEXes on Kusama, it seems like a dead ecosystem. Right now what I see is KSM dying and people trying to do expensive art stuff that don't bring value to the economics of KSM, KSM seems to be insolvent, how will this referendum help in anyway to achive this?

I like Kusama but honestly its current situation is very disappointing, I wish it had economic activity of its own but it seems to survive on dumping on its holders.

Tell me how will approving this referendum help in this way? To me it seems just more inflation to holders who have been losing value for years.

[@EkGD...TKcS](EkGDNCwCK5TH8JYBFmDC6gzNZdbjmDKycoSqwNhfXt4TKcS-kusama) 

Approving #676 costs you and the treasury nothing - but it does give some space for creativity.  

The alternative is towards JAM Prime. [#671](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/671) to [#674](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/674), were rejected and all four would end Kusama's validators and staking. 

That would stop the issuance you object to. 

However it would also take away the one job KSM does at scale today. About 8.56m KSM is staked, and we'd expect the price to fall hard when the job goes.  

So the question is simple. Do you want that, or a shot at a group who think another way is possible and have a credible vision for how to replace and indeed increase that demand?

**The longer version**

You're right about the state of things, and #676 on its own won't fix it. Judged as a finance chain, Kusama has indeed failed. 

We don't think that test finds what comes next. The missing pieces are turning up in another form, for another purpose, and they're small:

- **Memberships on Kreivo.** Birdbrain has 27, and new members keep their key on their own device through [Virto's VOS](https://github.com/virto-network), we have modelled the demand they can create for KSM [here](https://birdbrain.wtf/rfc/rfc-001-treasury-as-onboarding-subsidy). 
- [**Bloque**](https://bloque.sh)**.** Accounts, cross-border payments and debit cards, with a [bridge from Polygon and Base to Kreivo](https://github.com/bloque-app/bezent) on the way. The bridge isn't in production or audited, and Bloque holds the reserves.
- **dUSD.** It has settled paid queries against a group's record on mainnet, though no outside buyer has made one.
- [**Murmur**](https://github.com/Birdbrain-wtf/murmur)**.** An open app with one edition per group, and you can [download it now](https://birdbrain.wtf/murmur) for Mac or Linux. It runs a light client, and on Linux you can soon switch it to run the whole network. 
- **A creative network.** Starting with Decent and [Four To The Floor](https://fttf.decent.partners). Other groups around the world are being onboarded.

We've built this slowly, from the inside out, on very little money.

Our focus is on creating an incentive design at the core of the network that captures the value of emerging intelligence. 

We believe tokens are mostly priced on narrative today. We're building for the point when people realise they need to capture and consent to all of their digital activity, with systems that consent, protect and compensate the people who add their context to a network. 

Consented and attributed reasoning is the most valuable resource in the world today - and yet there is no system or tool able to simplify the process of individuals and groups making sense together. 

At the core of the design is a triple point economy: KSM for memberships, beside staking. KAB for coordinates, the addresses in a contribution record, paired against KSM once it reaches Asset Hub, so an outside buyer would buy KSM first. dUSD for payments - and this all leads to something we are calling initial graph offerings (IGOs). 

We see IGOs as way for someone to speculate on the collective intelligence of distributed groups and their *graph economies* rather than simply speculating on a token.  

Polkadot is redesigning its own economics with DOT, [dotUSD](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1944) and [JAMKB](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/dot-daoism-under-jam-an-island-story-by-gavin-wood/17959). 

We don't want to copy it, and a design this different needs independence. 

The Fellowship is competent. However we believe the people who have been iterating on Kusama since launch are best placed to delete what isn't needed and organise what's left towards something truly original rather than chasing existing narratives.


Supporting this proposal means KSM holders want an independent Kusama, keeping its own validators on a reduced JAM, to be **scoped, priced and specified in the open, and compared with JAM Prime before Kusama's validators are retired.** It continues [#573](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/573), which passed on 21 August 2025.

It asks for no funds, no DOT and nothing from the Kusama Vision fund. It sits beside [#671](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/671), [#672](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/672), [#673](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/673) and [#674](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/674) so that a voter who wants Kusama to keep its validators has a line to vote for. You can support this and any of the four. If both pass, the comparison comes first.

The full resolution is the proposal itself, shown below.

## References

- [Forum post](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/a-fifth-option-an-independent-kusama-on-a-reduced-jam-keeping-its-validators/19047)
- [Full paper](https://github.com/Birdbrain-wtf/publications/blob/main/content/articles/independent-kusama-fifth-option/index.md)
- [Come to the Monday call](https://birdbrain.wtf/chaos/join), 26 October, 15:00 UTC, given to this question

*Proposed by Birdbrain (People Chain identity `Birdbrain`), a collective on Kreivo. Decent Partners supports Birdbrain. Interests in full are in the paper.*


# Kusama Proposal #675 (Simplified)

- This is a vote about keeping Kusama independent with its own validators.
- It wants the plan to be checked, priced, and shared openly.
- It wants this plan compared with another plan called JAM Prime.
- This must happen **before** Kusama's validators are retired.
- It asks for **no money** — no funds, no DOT, nothing from the Kusama Vision fund.
- It follows an earlier vote (#573) that passed on 21 August 2025.
- It works alongside proposals #671, #672, #673, and #674. You can vote for this one and any of those.
- If both this and another proposal pass, the comparison happens first.

An independent Kusama on a reduced JAM, keeping its validators

References

Kusama Proposal #675 (Simplified)

References