I’ll keep this calm, because I mean it that way, not as another rant. Let me start with where we came from, because it matters. At the beginning the promise was big and simple: a heterogeneous multi-chain, shared security, and a token, DOT, used to govern the network, to stake for its safety, and t…

@batbayar , @Max , we need to go live with both WFCs as soon as possible. The DOT DAO requires clarity on the value linkage between the footprint representative token and DOT. Let’s prioritize this and get it sorted.

@BizaRre , @Max , both wishes are on chain now. The settlement WFC went up today as referendum 1927 . Max, that is the number for your link-back. It carries the #20 text. For any release of JAM state footprint by the DAO or its treasury, payment is made in DOT and every refundable amount comes back in…

I wish @gavofyork had given his opinion on this matter in order to improve this proposal since he is the one that proposed the JAMKB token, maybe there are some points we are missing here, this seems to be an important decision, opposing views would have helped to shape better this proposal. Given …

ok, great! I updated the link to 1926 now from 1927 in the section “What this WFC leaves open”, so it should be clear that these are two independent (but related) questions that can be voted on. @batbayar remember to update the headline in the WFC, currently it only says “[Wish For Change] Referendu…

@CryptoJoe the worry is fair, so let me answer it straight. The proposal is not perfect. It was shaped in the open here before filing: the #20 text changed on feedback more than once, including the correction from @thewhiterabbitM , and the co-sponsors reviewed it before it went on chain. That is the…

Hi everyone, I’d appreciate your support in moving forward with a WFC for this proposal. [image] Proposal: Introduce a Permanent Burn Account for Polkadot Ecosystem Summary With the ongoing discussion around Wish For Change #1926, which proposes burning the DO…

@ultracoconut your proposal answers a different question: how the burn should happen if 1926 passes, burn account versus protocol burn, and whether burned DOT quietly returns through issuance under the cap. That belongs to 1926’s implementation lane, and your thread is the right place for it. This w…

@batbayar I suggest to add a title to Ref. #1927 so that people can better understand what it’s all about at a first glance.

Ref. #1927 is getting nayed by a huge vote from ChaosDAO. That makes also ref. #1926 by @Max definitely weaker in terms of benefit to DOT value (no more buyback is mentioned in the text of the WFC).

@BizaRre It is getting nayed bc it doesn’t provide a context Those who proposed it did terrible since it doesn’t explain anything. [image]

A request for clarity before JAM: the people who funded this deserve a straight answer

Ecosystem

ultracoconut July 31, 2026, 2:27pm 37

Hi everyone, I’d appreciate your support in moving forward with a WFC for this proposal.

Topic		Replies	Views
Introducing a new JAM Token? Ecosystem	55	5652	June 22, 2026
Questions on JAMKB Distribution, Pricing and DOT Value Capture Ecosystem	26	1539	July 3, 2026
Proposal: Introduce a Permanent Burn Account for Polkadot Ecosystem	32	1180	September 2, 2026
On $JAMKB: should state footprint be a perpetual holding, or a metered flow? Tech Talk	13	828	July 11, 2026
Overdue for Results Ecosystem	43	1760	June 26, 2025

A request for clarity before JAM: the people who funded this deserve a straight answer

Related topics