The IBP Bounty which has received significant funding lists five curators: Erin, Otar, Anaelle, Coinstudio, and one anonymous wallet.
Why did Coinstudio receive $2,000 in 2024 as curator and is now being paid $3,400 per month?
What specific duties or measurable outcomes justify these amounts?
Until these points are clearly explained, concerns about the management of these bounties remain fully justified.
I also find it curious that Coinstudio is a curator on this other bounty where it is being paid $350 per month. Could someone please clarify why this individual is being paid $3,400 per month from the IBP Bounty?
Does anyone have a clear answer or transparency report on this?
It appears that Coinstudio was paid 1,890 DOT a few days ago for their curator role.
Can someone in this ecosystem please explain why Coinstudio is receiving this amount on a monthly basis for acting as a curator? What exactly are the responsibilities or contributions that justify these payments?
It has also recently been pointed out that Coinstudio is allegedly one of these shady flipper validators and last minute payments in the Legal Bounty which raises even more concerns.
@otar @erin @anaelleparity any light on this as you are also curators in IBP Bounty?
@SAXEMBERG Can we close this bounty or remove Coinstudio as curator?
It’s very hard to take someone seriously who spends 16 days “investigating” and never reads the proposals.
As far as it’s known and it hasn’t seemed to have changed, Coinstudio is the responsible for the payments as well as multisig transactions.
From the proposal
The IBP has worked closely with Coinstudio (community member) together since the beginning of the IBP. As our accountant, Coinstudio was in charge of ensuring all payments are documented correctly and of preparing multi-sig calls for the curators. In his role he will also be in charge of yearly auditing members. His support ensures that all expenses of the IBP are properly documented.
Originally called advisor on the document, it currently is billed as curator. Other curators seem rather inactive. Are the amounts justified? It’s up to the interpretation of the current ecosystem members. Have the amounts been hiked in the dark, no. These were the terms originally approved by the original referendum and refills.
For the rest whether IBP bounty has to be closed? probably not. The Assethub migration left external entities like exchanges, websites, etc. with a shortage of Assethub RPCs which is the main RPC now. Probably all bounties require some tuning some more than others but for now b50 doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary (or at least outside of the previously approved). The W3F is in contact with the bounties so some changes will happen in the future most likely as it is the main entity that governance has to address to now that DVs are no longer a thing, if not, we’ll be here to push the close button 
.
Keep it up with the audits however, there still some things around that hopefully get to be addressed soon.
I’m not sure if you’re implying that I shouldn’t be taken seriously because I supposedly didn’t read the proposal. If so, that claim is simply false — I did read it, and what I found are glaring inconsistencies that remain completely unanswered.
First, why does this alleged “accountant” role exist only in this bounty and nowhere else?
What exactly does Coinstudio do in this capacity? Looking at GitHub activity, the only visible Coinstudio’s contribution in December is the upload of two PDF files last week, one in Polkadot and another one in Kusama. Is that really the full monthly workload?
Are we seriously expected to accept $3,400 per month for a task that appears to take no more than an hour? 
Why does the proposal explicitly state that Coinstudio would be paid $2,000, while in reality the payments amount to $3,400 per month?
Thank you for your response.
That said, it is frankly ridiculous that someone is being paid $3,400 per month for uploading one or two PDF files, a task that takes at most an hour to complete. And to make matters worse, the proposal itself clearly stated that the compensation would be $2,000, not $3,400.
This is nothing short of a farce. Situations like this seriously undermine trust in the process and make the whole setup look like a joke.
Is it possible to remove this curator and replace them with someone else, or at least prevent these payments at this level without having to close the entire bounty?
Ok, great so you read Kusama #35. There are also Kusama #51, #73 and Polkadot #649 and #1516.
Basically what he does is keep up to date on everything that is happening internally which is usually quite a bit. Handles RFCs, reports, documents. Only recently have we begun to implement more automated procedures that would reduce a lot of his work. You can find that here: IBP Dashboard and this system still isn’t 100%.
I’d guesstimate at least 5 hours a week in communication / keeping up to date, doing the multisigs and preparing the monthly outputs another hour or 2. He writes up the quarterly reports which take more time to put together historically which is another 15-20hr/quarter.
It’s ideal to pay him enough to incentivize his participation. I talk with him almost every day (about IBP related stuff). In one of the last 2 polkadot proposals, I don’t remember which, we revamped that seat (as well as removing the janitorial advisor role), and the pay was increased based on an hourly rate and 40 average hours per month.
I’m taking this information directly from the latest top-up proposal, where it was explicitly stated that the monthly compensation would be $2,000 per month. Yet, somehow, this amount has magically increased to $3,400 per month in practice.
I do not see any contributions from Coinstudio in RFCs, and based on his GitHub activity, it does not appear that Coinstudio is doing anywhere near enough work to justify $3,400 per month.
Regarding the quarterly reports, the most recent one I have been able to find is Q3 2024, and it is only 8 pages long.
Where are the quarterly reports for the entire year 2025? There appears to be a complete lack of updated reporting, which only reinforces concerns about transparency.
This links to the bounty overview page which includes the proposal information from polkadot #649. The latest top up is polkadot #1516 https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1516
All the reports are on GH last one was 03/2025. As of summer 2025 most things on the report are now available on the dashboard as I discussed earlier.
Apologies for chipping in but what’s the status of your agents programme @tom.stakeplus
Last time you mentioned, you said you will show something in September 2025.
No matter how much you insist, this is defending the indefensible. The facts are clear:
Coinstudio has not participated in any RFCs, despite claims to the contrary.
The last report produced dates back to March 2025, yet payments have continued as if regular reporting were still being delivered.
Coinstudio is receiving $3,400 per month, with no clear explanation of what work is actually being done to justify this amount.
The last time these payments were transparently reported was * September 2025. Since then, they have effectively been hidden with the new report format. For example, in * December, Coinstudio received $3,400, and this expense does * not appear in the report.
How long is the community expected to tolerate this farce?
Regarding the alt account Megadot: since you’ve already decided to take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner while spreading repeated accusations against individuals, it would be appropriate to come forward with your real ecosystem identity and take responsibility for the claims you are making.
I am also asking moderators to intervene in cases where defamatory accusations are being made without real or tangible proof. Public allegations have consequences, and accountability should apply equally to those making them.
Throwing out wild and uncorrelated accusations only shows that you haven’t taken the time to properly familiarize yourself with the bounty itself or the services it provides. Criticism is fine, but it should be grounded in facts and a basic understanding of the scope of work involved.
If you have genuine questions or constructive feedback, I’m open to discussing them in good faith. Otherwise, I’m not going to take part in the hateful and disrespectful and vengeful crusade that you started.
I’m done. If anyone who isn’t a troll arguing in bad faith has any questions about anything feel free to reach out to me at @stakeplus:matrix.org on element or DM here.
Someone who has behaved unethically toward the community, with on-chain evidence to support it, is not in a position to give advice.
I understand how the IBP bounty works and the service it provides, but what I don’t understand is what you actually do to justify $3,400 per month as a curator.
I have asked questions about this, and so far, I have received no answers.
You have received an answer, please see: IBP Bounty paying Coinstudio curator $3400 per month - #10 by tom.stakeplus
If you have any further questions please take them up directly with Tom. This thread has a lot of concern trolling in it and I do not see the value in accusations/hostile language being thrown around about something you don’t know anything about the operation of. The forum is not a place for this; please contact the bounties directly. Consider this a warning. Thanks.
It’s a very old trick to just call someone a troll for asking uncomfortable questions. Tom’s response is basically nothing.
In this message, you can see my question and how Tom’s answers completely fail to address it — specifically, what Coinstudio actually does as a curator to justify being paid $3,400 per month.
