Full Disclosure for Head Ambassador Sponsorship
Hello Everyone,
I am seeing some issues with the new Head Ambassador program. I believe full disclosure is necessary as to who is sponsoring them for greater community transparency.
-
It has come to my attention that a hefty sum of 5K DOT Decision Deposit (DD) is required to apply for the Head Ambassador (HA) program. This translates to about $28,750 USD or ~5.75 * 5000 DOT. Many HA candidates have resorted to seeking sponsorships because of the steep barrier to entry.
-
The DD was not mentioned in the original Ref: 487. You would think such a crucial detail should have been included in the ref. But, it wasn't: https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/487
-
Some in the community are calling this the Whale Ambassador Program. Including a former HA: Alex Promo Team: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/feedback-needed-new-head-ambassador-application-requirement/8549/43?u=alexpromoteam
So based on the above issues and in the spirit of transparency in OpenGov. I will request any HA that has successfully won their bid for the HA position to disclose who their sponsors are. This includes providing wallet addresses and Transaction IDs from the sponsors (It should add up to 5K DOT). It can be posted as "HA Sponsorship Full Disclosure" as a topic on Polka Assembly.
Comments (3)
Comments (3)
Hey there!
-
As potential Head Ambassadors, wouldn't one of their primary roles be building relationships? Are they not allowed then seek out said sponsorships from larger DOT holders if they don't have any? Seems as if this would be an effective indicator for his/her ability to bring others together…
-
Why should it need to be mentioned explicitly in Ref 487? The DD on ALL refs in this track require 5K DOT, so it's as simple as knowing what the track parameters are. By extension, should people not push forward referenda on Wish for Change if they do not have 20K DOT for the DD? It can still be used as a signal for community sentiment.
-
That's just one person. I've literally never heard anyone else ever mention this as an issue since the program started.
Furthermore, why would anyone need to disclose anything when everything can be traced on-chain? If it's a single person who is placing the decision deposit, you know who it is. For example, my colleague Will (aka Paradox) placed the DD for Abdulbee with no prompting. He simply did it because he "decided to aid a person who is…hardworking, honest, and deserving of the position."
Ultimately, there is already transparency around these issues, but it might take a bit of digging through the chain data to find it.
Hey there!
As potential Head Ambassadors, wouldn't one of their primary roles be building relationships? Are they not allowed then seek out said sponsorships from larger DOT holders if they don't have any? Seems as if this would be an effective indicator for his/her ability to bring others together…
Why should it need to be mentioned explicitly in Ref 487? The DD on ALL refs in this track require 5K DOT, so it's as simple as knowing what the track parameters are. By extension, should people not push forward referenda on Wish for Change if they do not have 20K DOT for the DD? It can still be used as a signal for community sentiment.
That's just one person. I've literally never heard anyone else ever mention this as an issue since the program started.
Furthermore, why would anyone need to disclose anything when everything can be traced on-chain? If it's a single person who is placing the decision deposit, you know who it is. For example, my colleague Will (aka Paradox) placed the DD for Abdulbee with no prompting. He simply did it because he "decided to aid a person who is…hardworking, honest, and deserving of the position."
Ultimately, there is already transparency around these issues, but it might take a bit of digging through the chain data to find it.
This is an obvious abuse of the small tipper track from a well-known troll