Both co-sponsors have now confirmed the final wording, so here is the consolidated text with their names on it, as I said I would once the list settled.
@Kingston007 and @BizaRre are on it. Kingston called the sale clause “insurance, not endorsement”, which is the right read: the rule binds a sale to DOT settlement without saying a sale should ever happen. BizaRre said we can move forward with this version, and was clear he hopes an outright sale never materializes. The leaves-open list now records that disagreement plainly and has the rule take no side on it.
The text is folded below to keep this short. Two things moved since the #8 draft. The counter bullet now names stablecoin and other-asset payment with the builder carrying the conversion cost. And the word sale sits at the back as a covered contingency rather than an item on the menu. Nothing else changed. The wish still fixes one thing, the unit the treasury settles in and holds, and leaves cadence, price, mechanism, and how much footprint the DAO retains to their own decisions.
The #8 invitation stays open. @thewhiterabbitM, this began as your ask, so there is a place for your name on it if you want it there, and the same goes for @usualsuspect and anyone else reading. The retention question Kingston put on the table is live in the holding or metered flow thread, and co-sponsoring this commits no one on it.
If the wording holds here, the next stop is the Wish for Change track, ahead of the JAM upgrade proposal in the back half of the year. Pick at it first if anything still reads wrong. Better here than in a referendum.
Wish for Change (consolidated text): settle DAO releases of JAM state footprint in DOT
The wish
The DOT DAO adopts one standing rule for the state footprint that current JAM proposals place under its ownership:
Any allocation or release by the DOT DAO or its treasury of JAM state footprint (JAMKB, or however the DAO’s holding ends up being represented) settles in DOT. Whatever form a release takes (lease, metered rental, refundable deposit, or, if the DAO ever chooses one, an outright sale), the payment is made in DOT and any refundable part is returned in DOT. Prices may be quoted in dotUSD or any other unit.
What this leaves open
- The release mechanism. Fixed-term leases, a metered flow, and the decaying-deposit design from W3F Research are all compatible with the rule, and an outright sale, if the DAO ever chooses one, is bound by it too. Whether sales should happen at all is contested among the co-sponsors; the rule takes no side and picks no mechanism.
- Cadence and price. Nothing here sets how much footprint is released, when, or at what price.
- How builders pay at the counter. Front ends and brokers stay free to accept any asset and convert to DOT at the point of payment. That includes stablecoins and any other asset a front end chooses to take; the builder carries the conversion cost. The rule fixes what the treasury settles in and holds, nothing upstream of that.
- The protocol. This is release policy for an asset the DAO would own. No Gray Paper change is involved, and whether a JAMKB token exists, and how it reaches the DAO, are untouched.
- Third parties. The rule binds the DAO’s own releases. What holders of already-released footprint do with it is theirs to decide.
Why DOT at settlement
Coretime, the resource the network already sells, is paid in DOT. This rule has the second resource settle like the first.
Settled in DOT, every allocation and every top-up sources DOT, and everything the treasury keeps accrues in the native token, with no conversion step and no later vote. Settled in a stable unit, value reaches DOT only through a conversion policy someone has to adopt and keep running, or through a stablecoin design the DAO has not chosen yet. In the W3F mechanism thread, Jonas Gehrlein agreed that “denominating the deposit in DOT looks like more direct value capture, since each allocation and top-up would have to source DOT.”
The designers agree the unit barely affects their mechanisms. That is the reason it will not settle itself: whichever unit the first implementation ships with becomes the default. The JAM upgrade proposal is expected to reach governance in the back half of 2026. Adopted now, while the release design is on paper, this rule costs nothing. Later it is a change to a running system.
Why this track
A standing rule about how the DAO releases what it owns is what the Wish for Change track exists for. It involves no spend and no protocol change, and OpenGov has used it for this class of decision on both networks: Kusama referendum 573 set JAM strategic direction, and Polkadot referendum 1827 adopted the first phase of the Dynamic Allocation Pool. Like any wish, a later referendum can revisit it.
Record
Deliberation so far: 17912 (distribution), 17928 (holding or metered flow), 17969 (the funders’ ask), 17971 (the W3F mechanism). Co-sponsors: batbayar, Kingston007, BizaRre. Comments and further co-sponsors welcome.