Feedback needed: New Head Ambassador application requirement

I have to agree with Giotto here. There SHOULD be a certain barrier to entry to this highest level of representation of Polkadot. I’ll provide more detail in a separate post below.

1 Like

I want to speak out in favour of keeping the DD as it currently is, for the following reasons:

  • HAs have to have skin in the game, and this DD is the easiest way to prove that
  • Not having any DD (or significantly lowering it) would invite a lot of spam/grifters/people from outside the ecosystem, who just come for the quick money and have no skin in the game
  • The fact that it has to be unstaked DOT is a general technical requirement, due to the otherwise existing risk of “double slashing”. It is the same for any other DD
  • I don’t think that the DD will discriminate against people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, because you can always have someone else place it on your behalf. Being a HA is an inherently political job (the terms “ambassador” implies that), so being able to form alliances and getting someone else to sponsor the DD can be considered “part of the job” or an “election criteria”.

In summary, if you don’t have 5000 DOT which you’re willing to lock, AND can’t find anyone who knows you well enough to place the deposit on your behalf, you probably should not become HA in the first place.


Polkadot Ambassador Program


Whale Ambassador Program

This “program” oppose several individuals aka Head Ambassadors supported by DOT whales to all ex-Polkadot Ambassadors. This “program” is not about community, onboarding new talented professionals, not about sustainable on-chain institutions, it’s all about serving whales and promote their narratives.

It was a cool 5-year journey for me as a Polkadot Head Ambassador, which seems to be coming to an end. I was great to work with all the true head ambassadors these years. We had great achievements, and I am proud of them all. I have decided to stay away from this new Whale Ambassador Program.

Here are the reasons:

  • All those who agreed to play this rules betrays hundreds of true ex-Polkadot Ambassadors and their long term contributions and sincere volunteering.
  • These new rules are totally unfair and only implementing grift and nepotism on-chain.
  • This program and the way it operates probably would not be long term sustainable. It will fail soon, or be transformed to something completely different.
  • $10k rewards per month (its a salary not what initially planed. Initial plan was the vision of “Not Tech” Fellowship - Ambassador Collective - DAO - idea to support and develop the longterm ambassador community. Not to come for couple month to make fake BuSiNeSs DeVelopMent or serve the whales, but build the sustainable on-chain institutions.
  • This “Program” not about the support regional communities and its leaders, not support local real adoption and “small” steps and events, explanation of Web3 and Polkadot hard concepts. It establish some abstract Business Development goals, which are only part of needed activities.
  • Looks like the main aim of this program to bribe several opinion leaders with big salary and destroy oppose voices.
  • Too much greed around, too many dramas and dog fights because of this “salary”.
  • No rewards for ex-senior ambassadors or ex-ambassadors (Rewards were planned and announced initially, which demotivated hundreds of ex-ambassadors who volunteered for years, especially compared to the $10,000 monthly salary of 20 “lucky” whale friends.)
  • “Candidates” one-by-one roastings by whales and their corrupted friends (the initial list of HA was planned and approved, and then thrown into the garbage.)
  • 5k DOT deposit is absurd, an additional lever for corrupted whales to influence community.
  • Discarding of previous contributions and experience of managing the Ambassador Program.
  • Total ignoring of the hundreds ex-ambassadors onboarded by each ex-Head Ambassador. This is our community, our friends and we going to oppose this iniquity.

It’s all unfair to the community and a betrayal of trust from a project that I’ve been part of for years. I recommend staying away from this “Program” .


Unfortunately I totally agree polkadot is being rapped by big whales that buy dot citizens for their own agenda and the most sad it’s that almost all agreed!
Back in 2021 when I enter in polkadot, I felt a amazing feeling to see a mass of people helping each other as a example of a real web3 community of ambassadors triggered by real values.
Nowadays I just see people trying to manipulate each other, as it is in real life corporations, so what is the difference between them and polkadot ???


Just wait and make sure you have friends in high places.

“the first Fellowship members got paid the deposit by W3F”

Has there been any inclination they’d do the same now?

“Similar” does not equal “same”. @joepetrowski Is the new Ambassador Admin track already out there or still in design phase? If the latter, parameters can be adjusted, right?

Please read Feedback needed: New Head Ambassador application requirement - #37 by joepetrowski

Right now it’s just using the Fellowship Admin track. Of course parameters can be adjusted, anything can be adjusted. But at this phase I would argue that any adjustment should be to raise the deposit. Right now the track is at a full 10/10 deciding (plus 3 more queued up with the deposit placed):


Everyone is panicking over this deposit but it has clearly not been an obstacle here. Of course on a technical level the track could have a higher capacity, but for sanity I would avoid it. The track limits are not to prevent state growth but rather to limit the number of referenda that voters need to evaluate simultaneously about a given topic/privilege level.

1 Like

@joepetrowski what was the reasoning to use the SAME Fellowship Admin Track and not a NEW similar (but not same) track?

Quoting the same line from the proposal as you did:
“Head Ambassadors can only be appointed (or removed) via general token-holder referendum on a new, Ambassador Admin track. This track should be configured in a similar fashion to the existing Fellowship Admin track.”

Not trying to be difficult here, just aiming to understand.

Congestion is an issue we couldn’t foresee.

Sadly, I need to agree.
I’m afraid your analysis is spot on.
This program will probably only further nepotism on Polkadot.

I think the average Polkadot enthusiast doesn’t have the time going through all the applications for HA positions. Hence, most voters will not be able to make an informed decision on each application. It’s mostly the whales that will decide.

Maybe, after some months it makes sense having another referendum on whether to continue this program.

Because it’s simpler, and if we have many collectives it doesn’t make sense to have many copy/pasted tracks when one will do just fine.

Of course it is :). We foresaw it in 2020 when designing OpenGov. It’s the reason the decision deposit and track limits exist. Of course there are many ways to handle it, you could have a fixed deposit and a cap (like we have now) or an increasing deposit (e.g. every new referendum requires 1.5x the deposit of the previous). The idea is that voters can only evaluate X number of proposals and the system needs some way to determine which ones get evaluated. Hitting the cap indicates that the deposit is too low because there are other referenda that cannot be decided upon even if people wanted to more than current referenda.