# Kusama Treasury Follow-up Analysis: Continued Budgeting Incompetence **URL:** \ **Category:** Ecosystem\ **Tags:** treasury, kusama\ **Created:** [June 19, 2023, 8:13am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/kusama-treasury-follow-up-analysis-continued-budgeting-incompetence/3143 "2023-06-19T08:13:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![rich](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.polkadot.network/rich/32/159_2.png) [@rich](https://forum.polkadot.network/u/rich)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2023, 10:48am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/kusama-treasury-follow-up-analysis-continued-budgeting-incompetence/3143/5 "2023-06-28T10:48:01Z")
Thanks for sharing your perspectives @asteeber and @shawntabrizi. I’m going to suggest that before we change these _parameters_, we also discuss a little more what we hope to achieve if we are ultimately to evolve this technology to become more _humane_, not more _technocratic_. Why I love Adam’s post is that it shows off the complexity of his personality - it is **analytical** , **critical** and **emotional** - and underpinning it all, are his **values**. @shawntabrizi you bring a different, but no less important perspective - but what is front of mind to you, is not necessarily what is front of mind to others - as has been noted elsewhere: > [@Skepticism Sundays - raising the standard of debate, argument and critique of ideas in the ecosystem](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/skepticism-sundays-raising-the-standard-of-debate-argument-and-critique-of-ideas-in-the-ecosystem/3077/5): > > It’s interesting because Shawn brings up only technical questions, while it’s not at all what came to my mind and I would have brought up mostly “philosophical”/“fundamental” questions such as: We all see the world through different eyes, interpret data points differently and communicate our intentions in different languages - english, spanish, rust… This is true of every one of the **1000+ members** of this forum. Collectively we are way smarter than we are individually, but it is very very hard to translate between these perspectives, without getting into arguments. ## Why perspective matters to parameter changes @asteeber you have experienced a wide range of emotions when it comes to treasury funding. You have lived the highs and endured the lows - the stress, the anxiety and the _unfeeling nature_ of the overlords. @shawntabrizi you have never (afaik) proposed a treasury spend, nor sustained your work by requesting funds from a collective pot, nor endured the gauntlet of this process. Until you do you cannot understand what it is like to be a community member in this context. This is not a criticism, this is an observation - and it is one that is **true for all of Parity/W3F**. I have sustained my work entirely through treasury funding and my own funds for the last 3 years, helping many others do the same. This process has allowed me to see first hand how different people - both proposers and voters interpret parameters, mechanisms, language and process **differently**. ## Suggestions Financial models are are always wrong - the longer out we plan, the more wrong they will be. Ultimately these models tell us what the future looks like, if **nothing were to change**. For example, we are structuring a deal with external financiers, that would enable the treasury and collective to become far more potent, thus extending spending powers [well into the future](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/introducing-an-alternative-financing-strategy-structure-and-partnership-for-maximising-the-potency-of-kusamas-treasury/3146). Models are useful for getting people to think about **bigger pictures** - to assess what matters and to allow groups to plan for the future in an educated and importantly an **iterative way**. - **Suggestion 1:** Adam, or others to create monthly **treasury forecasts**. This could easily turned into a programmatic analysis to be surfaced through a UI such as Polkassembly / Subsquare. @Jas @wliyongfeng. We are adding this to our work developing a Discourse \<\> Substrate \<\> Wordpress integration, whose aim is to better unify data, analytics, media, discussion, proposals and on/off chain triggers and performance measures within a unified UX/UI. - **Suggestion 2:** We collectively outline what support looks like for talent through the full cycle of innovation and create language within the parameters and UX/UI that better educates proposers and voters as to the **type of funding** they are requesting and what stage they are in a bigger process… > [@asteeber](#): > > The whole reason I decided to make a career in Kusama is so I could eventually prove myself worthy of Polkadot - how can anyone prove themselves worthy of Polkadot when Kusama won’t let them battle test their ideas without becoming a slave who needs to beg to the overlords for uncertain compensation? Small changes can make a big difference to the **feeling** of contributing to the collective. Here are the current language of parameters: | Track Name | Max Deciding | Max Spend | Decision Period | Min Approval to Confirm | Timeout | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Small Budget | 10 | 100 KSM | 14 days | 50% | 28 Days | | Big Budget | 2 | 2,500 KSM | 14 days | 66% | 28 Days | | Treasurer | 1 | No Limit | 28 days | 66% | 7 Days | Here is how we could make the parameters **more humane** - not this is not just about changing numbers, but about changing labels and also considering the implications on how we **communicate this process**. | Phase | Queue | Max spend | Decision Period | Approval required | Timeout | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Research | 10 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 20% | 28 Days | | Proof of concept | 2 | 2,500 KSM | 14 days | 40% | 28 Days | | Product | 1 | No Limit | 28 days | 60% | 7 Days | Currently **tracks** condenses a lot of nuance into a single technical term - but we must be clear that different tracks correlate with different areas of governance. There is nuance. If we see spendng tracks as **phases** in an **innovation process** we can open up more interesting design space when we consider adjustments to things like **the burn** (which is really a Root origin track) and see this as an example of another spendable **origin** whose consistent ‘drip fed’ funding is useful in a different **phase**. | Phase | Origin | Queue | Max spend | Decision Period | Approval required | Timeout | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Concept research | Treasury | 10 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 10% | 28 Days | | Applied Research | Treasury | 100 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 20% | 28 Days | | Proof of concept | Treasury | 2 | 2,500 KSM | 14 days | 30% | 28 Days | | Product | Treasury | 10 | No Limit | 28 days | 51% | 7 Days | | Base salary | Burn | 5 | 500 KSM | 7 days | 51% | 28 Days | | Mid salary | Root | 3 | 1000 KSM | 7 days | 51% | 28 Days | | Top salary | Root | 1 | 1500 KSM | 7 days | 51% | 28 Days | | Bonus | Root | 1 | No limit | 7 days | Adoption based | 28 Days | Once we have USDT spendable from treasury accounts we can evolve this further, giving people the option of requesting either **KSM with some vesting parameters** or **liquid USDT**. Under certain conditions such as an ‘on-chain metric based’ bonuses, this KSM can be liquid. | Phase | Origin | Detail | Queue | Max spend | Decision Period | Approval required | Timeout | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Concept research | Treasury Account A | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 100 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 10% | 28 Days | | Applied Research | Treasury Account B | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 25 | 5000 USDT | 7 days | 20% | 28 Days | | Proof of concept | Treasury Account B | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 5 | 50000 USDT | 14 days | 30% | 28 Days | | Product | Treasury Account C | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 3 | 200000 USDT | 28 days | 51% | 7 Days | | Direction | Treasury Account D | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 1 | 1000000 USDT | 28 days | 60% | 7 Days | | Base salary | Burn | Liquid KSM | 5 | 500 KSM | 28 days | 51% | 28 Days | | Mid salary | Root | Liquid KSM | 3 | 1000 KSM | 28 days | 51% | 28 Days | | Top salary | Root | Liquid KSM | 1 | 1500 KSM | 28 days | 51% | 28 Days | | Bonus | Root | Liquid KSM | 1 | No limit | 7 days | On-chain metric based | 28 Days | **Summary** We are moving in the right direction, but we need to as a collective think more holistically about the whole **innovation and support process** , rather than just addressing symptoms with deeper underlying faults. I’ve begun to lay out some of this rationale here in this post [Structuring support across a full innovation cycle](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/structuring-support-across-a-full-innovation-cycle/3170) > Current arguments within ecosystems focus attention on large ‘public good’ treasuries. Whilst influential, these entities are just one component in what can be understood as a phased innovation process that should be structured through the full life cycle of R&D, productisation and go to market, with motivations, oversight, rewards and ROI contingent on the phase and the entity involved. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/kusama-treasury-follow-up-analysis-continued-budgeting-incompetence/3143)._