not quite.
here are the many payouts made in the last 24 hours just before claiming “all MB funds have been returned” publicly:
and here is what the proposal clearly states:
and…
so the network voted to close a bounty and stop all future spending..
yet new, future-looking payments were pushed through at the very end?
that sets a precedent. and not a good one.
trust in how funds are handled is already low. more bounties are now under scrutiny, and people are watching to see whether things improve or stay the same.
so if the ecosystem is moving toward cleaning up bounties and tightening oversight, how should any future closure be treated? what confidence can anyone have that last-minute or undisclosed payouts won’t happen again?
the real question becomes: what standard are we setting for every future bounty closure?
because whatever happens here becomes the template everyone else follows.
–
on the kus payment..
a ~$51,000 payment for “the kusamarian the kus december 25 campaign” was just sent with no other information provided despite the ref to close the MB clearly stating no “new campaigns,” while:
- there are still no public performance reports after february
- key questions about how earlier funds were spent are still unanswered
- treasury funded platforms are being used to publicly attack and misrepresent multiple whistleblowers instead of simply answering the basic questions that started all of this
why is this december payout still going to the kus while all of this is unresolved?
if these payouts came from old agreements, those agreements should already be public. where are they? without upfront reporting and timestamps, anyone can create a contract after the fact, which is exactly why transparency has to come first for treasury funded work.
and at a basic level, how weak would a contract have to be for a vendor to keep receiving 50k a month when prior reporting obligations have not been met for months?
given the size of this payment and the history around it, the ~$51,000 payment should be returned to the treasury unless clear documentation is provided and the previous concerns are properly addressed.
–
on serotonin agency..
as someone else already mentioned, it would be helpful for serotonin to share their spend and performance data so the wider ecosystem can understand what was done, what worked, what did not, and what others can learn from their campaigns.
is anyone coordinating this or are we just rolling into another month of spend with no visibility? why keep approving around 60k a month when there is no real oversight and no clear way for the community to confirm the funds are being used responsibly?
–
getting this right matters because it confirms that bounty closures are not a window for last-minute payouts the community never agreed to.