Gov1 Social Contracts -> OpenGov Transition - Should there be a system?
YieldBay recently submitted Referenda 97 to the treasury, requesting payment for the development of polkadot's yield farming dashboard.
For details please see our delivery report.
This work was approved by the council as motion #355 under gov1, but the proposal is currently failing with only 29% in favor.
The changes introduced with OpenGov left a few proposals like our own in the shadow realm.
The reason I'm writing this post is because some of these proposal including our own were passed under Gov1 by the council.
And there was a social contract to pay for the final milestones AFTER delivery.
Now we've delivered the promised work, but proposals like ours are currently being denied the payment for the same under OpenGov.
Since info for reimbursement wasn't stored on-chain, there aren't any special provisions for proposals like ours under the new OpenGov system… this means if the proposal doesn't pass, we need to pay the development cost out of our pockets.
I believe we should respect everyone's right to vote as they please and feel that they do not owe any explanation for their voting decision.
However, if builders acting in good faith are left at loss due to the recent change without a notice period, I believe it sets a bad precedent.
I personally believe it's IMPERATIVE to attract and retain teams that act in good faith and try to contribute to a flourishing DOT economy.
And an event like this can be discouraging, even severely damaging for builders.
Link to our proposal: https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/97
A proposed solution:
Comments (1)
@batman
stop cry.
the value to polkadot from your defi aggregator is 0.
go and ask money from treasury of that parachains where there are some contracts.
there are 0 defi on polkadot network itself.
it is wrong to ask money from treasury for your agregator. it usless and not related to polkadot itself
Hey @139R8uTcGcNTUc55NYbEzhAZfhk6geCxT9ZaaELEySzwPpSA
Thanks for sharing your comment. I apologize for the initial emotional stance, I've updated the content of this post to be more relevant to the discussion.
I am completely with you that a proposal that doesn't add value to the ecosystem should be rejected by the treasury (ideally with constructive feedback for the teams to regroup and create something of value).
However, the council originally approved some multi-milestone proposals where the payment for latter milestones was to be made AFTER delivery.
Now, these social contracts are void under OpenGov without any notice to the teams.
I am of course biased here, so take my comments with a pinch of salt.
But I do think that leaving builders acting in good faith is a net negative for the Polkadot ecosystem.
Changes in market trends require changes to the way we do business (e.g. Intel’s Move From Memory to Microprocessors) but changing social contracts in retrospect sets the precedent that we can't trust the Polkadot treasury to fulfil its promises.
Keen to hear your thoughts on the cost/benefit between retaining teams acting in good faith v/s denying payment for previously agreed upon work and losing both existing good actors and potentially deterring new builders from being onboarded.
Polkassembly is now a read-only archive. Commenting is disabled.