Looking at these two top-up proposals together, I think there is a broader question worth discussing about the collator bounty programme.

The concern is not simply about the cost of the programme, but also about how the funded slots are distributed.

Looking at the corresponding collator selection referenda:

• Polkadot: 30 funded slots across the five System Chains, with 22 unique operators. 8 operators hold 2 slots each, accounting for 16/30 slots (53.3%). Across the three Tier-1 chains alone, 7 operators hold 14/24 slots (58.3%).

• Kusama: 28 funded slots across the four System Chains, with 21 unique operators. 7 operators hold 2 slots each, accounting for 14/28 slots (50%). Across the three Tier-1 chains, 6 operators hold 12/24 slots (50%).

So this is not just a case of a few operators occasionally appearing twice. A relatively small group is repeatedly selected across multiple System Chains on both networks.

I understand the reasoning behind favouring operators with an established track record. Reliability obviously matters for critical infrastructure.

But this also creates a potential self-reinforcing cycle: existing operators get slots -> build more history and multi-chain experience -> become stronger candidates for future slots -> get more slots.

I think the community should discuss whether the current selection process provides enough room for new operators, and whether some limit per operator or another mechanism could improve operator diversity without compromising reliability.

The question is not whether the current operators are reliable. The question is whether the selection model can remain open and competitive over time.


The W3F voting to keep [bad actors on the System Chains](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1943) rather than hold them accountable? What a way to uphold the standards of the ecosystem. 🤡

W3F has voted in favor. This is merely a top-up for a previous Referendum which was already approved.

Dear community,

This proposal requests a top-up for Kusama system parachain collators **covering seven months, from July 2026 through January 2027**.

The programme remains unchanged from Referendum [643](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/643):


- **30 funded community invulnerable collators across AssetHub, BridgeHub, People, Coretime, and Encointer**
- **3 curators at $250 per curator per month**
- **$425 per month for hosting and local infrastructure**
- **No funding for permissionless collators, staking rewards, tool development, or a separate coordinator fee**

The **total request is $60,725**. Using the **EMA7 KSM price of $3.5177** from 1 September 2026, this equals approximately **17,262.70 KSM**.

This top-up is needed earlier than expected because the lower KSM price has reduced the runway from Referendum [#643](https://kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/643). The number of funded collators and the monthly funding model have not increased.

New proposal can be found here: https://gist.github.com/paradox-tt/61d47533f8d652c5ee380047e8ed00ac 
and an addendum for the updated calculation here: https://gist.github.com/paradox-tt/71aecb6d7ee3084492398aad2a19e201

Regards,

System Parachain Collator Bounty Curator Team


# Kusama System Parachain Collator Funding Top-Up

- Kusama wants to give more money to help run small computer helpers called "collators."
- This money will pay for seven months, from July 2026 to January 2027.
- It will pay for 30 helpers on five different Kusama projects.
- It will also pay 3 people to watch over the work and pay for computers and internet.
- The total cost is about $60,725, which is about 17,262 KSM.
- They need this money sooner than planned because KSM is worth less now.
- The plan is the same as before, and nothing costs more than last time.

Kusama System Collator Bounty 2nd Top-up - 2026

Kusama System Parachain Collator Funding Top-Up