Frequently Asked Questions

I’d like to collect here the Frequently Asked Questions.
I’ll start to add the first ones, feel free to add new ones.


Q: How do you become an ambassador?
A: Currently, we are unable to answer this question, as it will be the task for the new HAs.

Q: What happens to the previous ambassadors?
A: Currently, we are unable to answer this question, as it will be the task for the new HAs.

Q: L1 If an Ambassador or Senior Ambassador has a DAO multisig that uses pure proxies and signer accounts on the Polkadot relay chain but they were sent a payout in USDT or DOT to that multisig on Polkadot AssetHub system parachain from the Sub-treasury associated with the collective of the track they are in within the Polkadot Ambassador Program 2.0, after it was approved by a Head Ambassador, how would that payout be accessible to the Ambassador?

Q: Since HAs will be like salaried employees, are they allowed to ask for more money for themselves via OpenGov or bounties?

Q: L2.1 Who has the responsibility and permissions to create and maintain the prospective RFC repository on Github or similar equivalent for all tracks of the new Polkadot Ambassador Program 2.0 (e.g., including specifying the minimum maintenance, contribution, and security standards?

Q: L2.2 Is that going to be one of the Polkadot Head Ambassadors? If so from which track?

Q: L2.3 What is the process that those responsible will follow for granting others with responsibility and permissions for maintaining it?

Q: L2.4 How does the community challenge and replace those that are granted responsibility and permissions to maintain that RFP repository if it is not adequately maintained in a timely manner according to the minimum maintenance standards that are established?

Q: L2.5 If there ever becomes less than the minimum of ten (10) Polkadot Head Ambassadors after the initial seeding, who is going to be responsible for archiving or removal of that RFC repository?

Q: Will the HAs be required to show proof of paying taxes in their local jurisdiction to show that they play by the book?

1 Like

Q: L3.1 What is the maximum reasonable timeframe (after runtime upgrade 1.3 and after the seed Head Ambassadors are added to the collective for their respective track via the Ambassador Admin Track) for Head Ambassadors to have created a sufficiently exhaustive list of approved metrics for how Senior Ambassadors and Ambassadors get promoted within their track?

Q: L3.2 How should the community go about proposing new metrics or suggesting changes to the existing approved list of metrics if they are not deemed to be adequately exhaustive?

Q: L4.1 Was the reason why Parity’s Polkadot Developer Heroes Program (that was used for mentoring developers) was shut down yesterday because we now want one or more Ambassadors and Senior Ambassadors to take responsibility for mentoring on behalf of one or more Head Ambassadors that are going to delegate their responsibility to them for managing sub-collectives whose track focuses on coordinating mentoring and job shadowing of technical human resources similar to the different categories of specialization in the AWS Heroes Program?

Q: L4.2 Would technical tracks that include the responsibility of mentoring effectively be a rebirth of the mentoring aspect from the “Developers” Track again that was removed from the original Polkadot Ambassadors Program 1.0 or how would they differ?

Q: L4.3 How would these technical tracks that include the responsibility of mentoring differ from similar mentoring initiatives such as the AWS Heroes Program?

Q: L4.4 What mentoring-specific metrics would be used by these tracks that include the responsibility of mentoring?

Q: L4.5 What tracks would cater for non-technical mentoring (e.g. business development, legal, marketing, advertising, human resources, finance, sales, operations, customer service, administration, operations, research and development, accounting, project and program management, product management, quality, design, logistics, inspection, purchasing, environment including metaverses, commercial, web3-to-web2 integration, etc)?

Why not allow them to optionally use identities that protects their privacy, where they can optionally specify their tax jurisdiction and reporting dates, and have a proportion of the payments automatically transferred and locked for that purpose?

Nice idea, although in the world of progressive taxation, impossible to know the exact amount beforehand.

Yes, but i’ve highlighted that this would be an optional opt-in, with an approximate amount. In some jurisdictions even if they set aside or pay the wrong amount of tax and encounter a tax debt below a certain threshold being owed then they may arrange a compliant payment arrangement with the tax office.

This can only be answered by Parity, afaik.

1 Like

The most interesting thing about Polkadot Ambassador Collective is that not only do we need to ask questions, but we also need to elaborate on the answers ourselves.

We can use the current Head Ambassadors as a Think Tank to help all of us with the Polkadot Ambassador Program and future Polkadot Collective.

HA can elaborate the answers/options internally, and some of us can present the answers or possible solutions/options to the public and syncronize it with Fellowship from technical perspective. I am willing to take on this role if the community agrees.


You need an account on the Collectives Chain to be part of the Ambassador Program (technically it could be controlled by a multisig). That account can then delegate the salary payment to any address on the Asset Hub.


As per my understanding the HAs will be responsible to select Senior Ambassadors and Ambassador? This is very flawed in many ways.
Why not have in a way similar to Tech Fellowship with ranks assigned?

Hey !!
This proposal ( was accepted from the majority of the community. Even if in my personal opinion somethings i really dont agree, even so if it passed, is as it follows.
We defenatly can add more layers on it but folowing what it is and what allow us to do with the on going Tech implementation.
In case you didnt follow the last meeting here is the link:


1 Like

What do you mean? It’s exactly like the Tech Fellowship. The ranks are Ambassador, Senior Ambassador, and Head Ambassador.


Oh yes. My concern is are Head Ambassadors responsible for electing the Senior Ambassadors and Ambassadors? As per my understanding from the discussions.

Maybe I missed something.

"## Modifications and Evolution

Much like the Technical Fellowship, the Ambassador Program may want to implement changes to how the group operates. It should do this by passing a remark on its Head Ambassador voting track that states the change. This is similar to the Fellowship’s RFC process.

Changes that significantly affect token holders or Head Ambassadors, like program salaries or how many HAs should exist in the program, should pass referendum on the public Ambassador Admin track…"

1 Like