I point i don’t see addressed that deeply in this review is whether having a limited number of “spots at the top” leads to the kinds of outcomes we want.
Many were referring to Ambassador Program after 21 were onboarded as a “Hunger Games”, which can hardly be the kind of interaction we want among ambassadors.
At the heart of my feedback to the ambassador program, I felt there were 2 key changes that needed to be made:
- a merit based program which actually encourages and rewards actions and outcomes
- no limits to the number of members at any rank in the program
Rather than having people at the top gain their position by navigating the often grey waters of governance voting, btw which happens to give much greater influence to the same people who proposed the program, we should have people show through evidence of their actions and outcomes that they are qualified to be an ambassador of Polkadot at any level.
Furthermore, if you establish a merit based program, there is no need to create artificial scarcity of the role. I hope to live in a world where we could honestly say there are hundreds of head ambassadors because people around the world understand, can explain, and can advocate for Polkadot.
- Implementing KYC checks or similar methods to prove personhood might be advisable
I would also push back hard on this. This does not seem like it embodies the philosophies of decentralized and open networks at all.
If instead you rely on merit based metrics, you need not worry about KYC at all. You simply have achievements as proof of past work and to de-sybil bad actors.