Collective-Based, Multi-Asset Treasuries

[joepetrowski]

@polka.dom

I also agree with @brenzi that the funds allocated to each subtreasury should be consistent and percentage based. It’s simple, and leans into the continuity that only a system as expressive as blockchain can provide.

Yeah, I’ve come around to this idea of just allocating some percentage of inflation at mint time.

@polka.dom

If a proposal is put up to the __ collective, are they the only ones who can vote on it or can everyone? If the answer to the question above is yes, and we can’t vote alongside the collection. I stand firmly against creating collectives.

Yes, only members of a collective can vote on referenda that are put to that collective. It does not cut into the granularity of the voting system, it only provides a first-tier filter. The existence of collective-based treasuries doesn’t exclude or remove the existence of the main treasury. If the collective denies your funding request, and you think they are wrong, then you can still go to the main treasury and ask for a vote from all DOT holders.

@polka.dom

Overall I ask… why not just subtreasuries? In isolation, it appears to solve all the issues diagnosed and falls prey to none of the pitfalls.

Not sure how multi-asset support creates these “pitfalls” (that I disagree with). It just provides more flexibility. Multi-asset proposals (particularly stablecoins) is one of the most requested features. Different collectives have different objectives/mandates and will have different treasury allocation strategies. Forcing them to only hold DOT is the pitfall, not allowing multiple assets.