Polkassembly Logo

Head 1
Head 3
Head 4
Create Pencil IconCreate
TRACKS
ORIGINS
Report an issueNeed help with something?
Foot 1
Foot 2
Foot 3
Foot 4
OpenGov
View All Discussion

Proposal for Decentralized Resource Management in the Polkadot Ecosystem and Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in Bounties

The_White_Rabbit
a year ago
ecosystem

Introduction

To ensure effective governance and equitable resource management within the Polkadot ecosystem, it is crucial that the process of assigning and managing Bounties is both transparent and decentralized. The aim of this proposal is to minimize favoritism and conflicts of interest between curators and applicants by establishing clear expectations and operational procedures.

Objectives of the Proposal

  1. Promote decentralization in the management of Bounties.
  2. Establish guidelines for reviewing and allocating funds.
  3. Ensure transparency in the use of allocated resources.
  4. Define the responsibilities of curators, particularly those who are compensated.

Proposed Strategies

  1. Selection and Review Process for Applicants:

    • Curators should critically review each request, evaluating its legitimacy and necessity. They must provide constructive feedback to help applicants refine their proposals.
    • Clear documentation is essential, such as detailed invoices, reports, and estimates. This will ensure that curators can guide applicants towards sustainable solutions while keeping costs at optimal levels.
  2. Expected Role of Curators:
    A curator, especially if compensated, is responsible for acting in the best interests of the community.

This includes:
- Impartially reviewing Bounty requests.
- Providing support and advice to applicants to improve their proposals.
- Generating detailed reports on the use of funds, documenting each step and finalizing reports according to established deadlines.

  1. Reporting and Transparency:

    • After the allocation of funds, the curator must create a comprehensive report on the use of resources, storing it in a public digital space accessible to all community members.
    • If the fund allocation involves sensitive information or agreements subject to NDAs, the curator must sign a personal responsibility agreement, ensuring the highest level of transparency possible for the community. (This is sensitive and should be investigated further).
  2. Role of Decentralized Communities and Continuous Feedback:

    • Include community members in evaluating the curators’ decisions through feedback mechanisms, such as surveys or discussion forums.
    • Establish a curator rotation system to limit their tenure on a single Bounty, reducing the possibility of favoritism or bias. The bounty period could be used to evaluate, reconfirm, or replace the set of curators. Then when the bounty term is extended the community should give feedback regarding the work of the curators, if it is not satisfactory a replacement could be proposed (offchain) or a return to voting for a new set of curators.

Conclusion

Implementing these proposals will foster decentralized and impartial management of Bounties within the Polkadot ecosystem, contributing to stronger governance and collective well-being. It is essential to listen to community members and continually adapt the process to ensure it remains open, transparent, and accountable. Our vision is to build an ecosystem where trust and integrity are the foundational pillars of our interactions.

Comments (2)

Comments are restricted to accounts with an on-chain verified identity.

a year ago

Very good points. Maybe additional thing to add would be payments. Shawn scrutinized AMI bounty for their payments for curation, while for example Events bounty curators receive regular salary of (I think) 4k. Maybe the curators should apply for the salaries monthly by providing their comprehensive reports so the community can evaluate their work results, check their potencial conflict of interest and reward them accordingly or recommends the replacement. We also have to think about how to deal with curators applying their own projects to the bounty they curate. Even if they recuse themselves from the decision making process, there is an increased chance for quid pro quo voting within the bounty.

a year ago

There is a LOT I like here. I m not in agreement with everything. I particularly am not a fan of how to remove curators. I believe this has to be on an individual basis and needs a fast track for the health of the bounty. Please read additional items here discussion 2434... https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2434#bf2e4859-0b4a-4c87-a7c8-9a0a06a71470

PleaseLogin to comment

Comments (2)

Comments are restricted to accounts with an on-chain verified identity.

a year ago

Very good points. Maybe additional thing to add would be payments. Shawn scrutinized AMI bounty for their payments for curation, while for example Events bounty curators receive regular salary of (I think) 4k. Maybe the curators should apply for the salaries monthly by providing their comprehensive reports so the community can evaluate their work results, check their potencial conflict of interest and reward them accordingly or recommends the replacement. We also have to think about how to deal with curators applying their own projects to the bounty they curate. Even if they recuse themselves from the decision making process, there is an increased chance for quid pro quo voting within the bounty.

a year ago

There is a LOT I like here. I m not in agreement with everything. I particularly am not a fan of how to remove curators. I believe this has to be on an individual basis and needs a fast track for the health of the bounty. Please read additional items here discussion 2434... https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/2434#bf2e4859-0b4a-4c87-a7c8-9a0a06a71470

PleaseLogin to comment

Help Center

Report an Issue
Feedback
Terms and Conditions
Github

Our Services

Docs
Terms of Website
Privacy Policy

A House of Commons Initiative.

Polka Labs Private Limited 2025

All rights reserved.

Terms and ConditionsTerms of Website
Privacy Policy