Dear @ConorDaly22,

Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received one aye and five nay votes from ten members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The referendum faced significant opposition, with critics raising concerns about the lack of demonstrated technical integration, the repeated resubmission of the proposal, and doubts about its impact on Polkadot's adoption. Some viewed the initiative as misaligned with ecosystem goals, questioning the value of motorsports marketing for tech adoption. Supporters acknowledged the proposer’s effort and inclusion of KPIs but remained cautious about the proposal’s potential ecosystem benefits. Several members abstained, citing involvement with related efforts or awaiting a broader North American strategy. Overall, the proposal struggled to gain support due to unresolved concerns and skepticism about its effectiveness.

The full discussion, along with individual members' votes and comments, can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

This should be understood as a continuation of the discussion on referendum 1357.

To shorten all points to three bullet points. We still believe are relevant to this referendum.

• A moderate impact on stables is the main factor along with the price of DOT which is what’s needed to replenish the stablecoins in the treasury. We will wait until the referendum is about to end to better ascertain the shape of the treasury at that point in time.
• Competing referenda with significant asks. Unlike referenda 1357, referendum 1389 has a competing sponsorship referendum with referendum 1388 (Technical & Marketing Partnership - Polkadot & Team Vitality to revolutionize esports fan engagement thanks to Web3!). In case of favorable support of referendum 1388 we will have to also remove support to 1389 due to the potential sizable impact on the stables treasury.
• A detailed plan for business relations on Polkadot’s side is required. Second and third order effects should be considered more when the treasury is able to afford riskier and less defined approaches. For now, we prefer to have detailed participants as well as details about project onboarding. This should become the norm for future referenda looking to do the same. Not having visible and declared entity/entities involved with these kind of referenda that questions and complaints can be directed towards has proven insufficient in the past.

Until then, our vote will remain ABSTAIN and will be recast once these points have been reevaluated at a future date.