Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
Retroactive Tip for Assets-related Contributions to Polkadot SDK in the past 12 months
| Proponent | 12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR |
| Date | 6/07/2025 |
| Amount | 7,575.654 USDT |
I'm requesting a one-time retroactive tip to cover the costs for implementing several contributions that enable broader usage beyond transfers (locking, covering deposits) for assets in Asset Hub/Polkadot Hub. These contributions are either already released or in the process of being merged for further release.
Motivation
In the last year, I made three major contributions to the Polkadot SDK, which impact the user experience of Asset Hub/Polkadot Hub.
- #3951 (already released):
- Provides basic support for freezes (locks) using assets in the Asset Hub. This enables the possibility, among others, of vesting assets (#7404).
- #4530 (already released):
- Provides basic support for holds (deposits) using assets in the Asset Hub. This is connected to an upcoming project to determine which asset to use for paying deposits (utilising a conversion model) when signing a transaction, or even paying for deposits using stablecoins or ETH across the bridge.
- Refactors the balances model (the way balances are calculated) for asset accounts to be in line with the way native token balances are calculated.
- #7404 (in final review): Brings
pallet-vestingto assets, so people can make vested transfers of (among others) stablecoins or tokens in Asset Hub. Made possible by #3951.
In total, the measured amount for these contributions (measured in time spent, with a fixed hourly rate) exceeds the already compensated amount.
Cost Breakdown
Measured amount: $9,800 (with a rate of $50/h).
- Time spent in the three projects:
196h(~1.84 mo)
Already compensated amount: $2,224.346
- 2 months of Fellowship salary:
$1,666.666. - Tip for #3951:
$557.68(80 DOTat$6.971/DOT— EMA 7).
Remaining amount: $7,575.654
Comments (4)
Proposal Passed
hello @pandres95 ,
can you explain why the fellowship just cover a part of your total request? Thanks
Hi @SIM-DOT!
Yes. Since I presented these projects for assessment as part of my quarterly retention arguments, I considered it fair to assert that the Fellowship covered part of my overall time working on this project, essentially because it was not the only contribution I made during the same time in the Fellowship.
My monthly allowance at the time (for a Rank I) was $833.333, and I reached two nonconsecutive months of total work to complete this project.
I hope this response clarifies things. 😁
Hey Pablo,
I like the work you are doing. You are picking up a lot of things and deliver good work. I'm also fine with paying tips for these kind of work as it is done. However, I'm personally not a fan to come up later and requesting a tip based on some hourly rate for open source work. You have done this work as open source work and then requesting funding afterward feels weird. I would encourage you to go to the Rust OG bounty for example. There we can agree on the work and payment before and not trying to request it afterwards.
Hi @bkchr!
Thanks for this great piece of feedback. I know it might feel weird, especially considering the work is done and it's likely to be a bit late to go to the bounty.
To be fully honest, I wasn't aware of the Rust OG Bounty in the first place; otherwise, I'd definitely have gone there, had I known about it. Also, when I started working on this project, I hadn't dimensioned the magnitude this project took as well, so I couldn't plan accordingly to request beforehand.
This aligns with my previous mention that this request should be a one-time thing, as I have future projects in mind (such as extending the refactor of the deposits system to assets) that would benefit the ecosystem with improved usability. Now, I know where to start in the first place to help fund them (if needed).