Lucky Friday's Philosophy on Top Up Proposals

Governance
1

Dear Polkadot Community Members:

First and foremost, our team is incredibly grateful for having been chosen as a DV in the most recent cohort. We hope to do our best in providing guidance and feedback to all proposers of referenda, which is why we believe it best to articulate our views on “top up” proposals considering so many of them have appeared since the recent market downturn.

Although many of our team are alarmed by the rate at which the community continues to spend the treasury’s limited funds, we also understand that there is a social contract between the community who has voted AYE on previous proposals and the expectation of full funding by the proponents of said referenda.

To that end, previous votes that were registered NAY have been switched to ABSTAIN, and we will ABSTAIN from other referenda that require top ups that predate our DV delegation.

In order to be transparent and clearly articulate our team’s parameters for future AYE votes on top ups, we hope that all future proposals conform to the the following:

  1. Requests must clearly state the USD value of DOT required, as well as pledge to return any overage to the treasury. To not do so would be a breach of the social contract and diminish the reputation of the original proposer(s).

  2. Should the funds arrive and be worth less than the specified amount in the original proposal, they should be liquidated immediately and on-chain evidence of the USD value at the time included in the new top up proposal.

  3. The top up request should match the exact amount missing from the previously approved referendum, at which point Lucky Friday will support with an AYE.

Should these parameters not be met by future top up proposals, we will not support them.

Additionally, should individuals/teams choose to hedge the volatility of the DOT token in other ways, such as asking for extra DOT ahead of time, we will not support a future top up request.

Thank you for your patience as we continue to adjust our voting philosophy.

Gratefully,

The Lucky Friday team :four_leaf_clover:

P.S. - We are trying to funnel all requests for support, commentary, feedback, etc to our LF OpenGov public forum on Telegram. You can join by clicking HERE.

5 Likes
2

Brief addendum:

To ensure we are crystal clear with the community, and in an effort to eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever, the word “requests” from point 1 should read “original/initial referendum submissions”

Thank you again for your understanding and patience with us in this process.

Best,

The Lucky Friday team :four_leaf_clover:

3

Here is a suggestion for a top-up proposal policy:

NAY all top-up proposals denominated in DOT. If people want USD, they can ask for USDT/USDC.

We need to establish this mode of operation somehow and lovingly NAYing + commenting proposals that ask for DOT top-ups when they actually wanted USD is a first step.

1 Like
4

That is exactly what I personally fought for during our internal meeting. Shorty couldn’t see the difference because in his mind they are both “USD” amounts, which is why we articulated our top-up policy the way we did.

It would be my preference that top-ups be administered in stable coins, especially any amount below 6 figures (e.g. not using nearly half the stables for the Inter Miami deal) :handshake:

5

yes sir it´s alineated with BRA philosphy and from a big part of collective

1 Like