Exactly. It’s clear he’s out of his depth, yet somehow still thinks he’s above the whole community. I asked about YouTube campaigns and he replied about Twitter, like he doesn’t even read. Didn’t he used to be an actor or what?
1 Like
@Megadot pretty sure that was me asking about YT haha. please don’t go framing me as someone who spins up support alts, i barely have time for one account 
anyway, looking forward to hearing responses to @salty_carbonara great series of questions
1 Like
These are legitimate questions and I’ll answer for the lurkers because the answers make Kus look good. 
But we’ve seen rat packs of agitators before, and this will be my last reply.
- If OpenGov is fully funding all the operations (every single expense of your organisation is transferred to opengov directly or over MB) who owns the materials you produce?
What’s cool is that all our content is released under CC licenses as stated in past refs. All of our content since April 2022 can be downloaded here. You can also see how much work goes into every piece of content. There are several orgs in the eco who have a direct line to our content pipeline which is where you see a lot of the clippings from
- Who owns the leads you are capturing with ads? Are you sharing those leads with other relevant marketing teams, parity or W3F?
We work closely with many outreach agencies in the eco. How can you own a lead? 
- If Kusamarian as a platfrom is fully funded by the OpenGov, shouldnt OpenGov be able to vote on your mandate on the platform? Or are you claiming full personal ownership due to the fact you started the platform?
We have full responsibility for maintaining the platforms. There’s some editorial choices for the Friday DOT News Pump but Kus primarily maintains platforms for other people to speak and direct.
- Often on AAG you would ask projects to proove the amount of Transactions they produced in Polkadot - have you ever considered establishing data metrics for Kusamarian, which would essentially monitor inbound traffic and whether this traffic actually produces transactions?
Yes actually, and Polkadot People opens a new set of defined outcomes to help the eco achieve.
- What happens with Kusamarian content, all existing materials (funded by opengov) if you decide to hop on another chain?
It is digital content under CC licence. You can do whatever you want with it with attribution.
- As a reporter who claims independance, what did you do regarding Marketing Bounty reporting and asking them also the heavy questions about spending?
Kus is more accurately described as a series of stages. I’m more of a stage manager and a director of ecosystem talent. I’m happy to facilitate Marketing Bounty grilled on The Kus. But would you keyboard warriors have the courage to show your face and participate?
- Do you think that as a reporter you are in potential conflict of interest since you are partially funded by Marketing Bounty, directly affecting your objectivity on researching Marketing Bounty spending?
No. If MB is wasteful it can be explored on AAG. Usually bounties get picked apart at top up time.
- Do you think as a reporter and main host of AAG, it is not conflict of interest to also run your own DAO where you are personally engaging with DAO members on specific voting outcomes?
No. And the reporter moniker does not well describe the service I provide to The Kus & OpenGov. Probably more, like all funded media, a propagandist. In this case for the productive ecosystem agents who vote. Since I’m a DOT holder, I’m well aligned with them.
- Can you list Kusamarian internal guidelines on objectivity and fair reporting?
As stated in past refs. You could do some research
- And lastly, before Polkadot, what was your experience with reporting?
None. I worked as a director, presenter, and talent manager as I do now with The Kus.
well the first link i click on shows a chart that is obviously wrong and marked “Final Chart”
source
then, when i clicked the X link you provided, it didn’t even load.
you did post it on instagram, but with the wrong labels and y-axis, and it received 4 likes.
then it was posted on youtube with the same incorrect labels, for 13 likes and zero comments.
and on tiktok, the identical asset again, with zero engagement.
i get that typos happen, but this is bigger than a mislabeled chart. it’s a pattern. it shows the work is not being reviewed (like at all), even while charging premium rates.
and when the kus posts it must only take a min or so max cause you use the same ai copy across platforms with no thought/care to tweak messages per platform, then bill the treasury via the MB $3,400/mo (just to post).
2 Likes
-
Why is someone asking a set of legitimate questions (which you said yourself) get labeled as “rat pack” in the next line? Are the questions legitimate or not?
-
Why are you saying anyone should reveal their faces? Isnt this web3 where privacy is one of the main fundamentals? You are paid half a mil to show your face, and you are bound to transparency by your own ethical framework that you posted so we are not in the same boat. Do you stand by the message “less trust, more truth”?
-
When are you going to organise AAG where you will disect Marketing Bounty with the same standards you did for all other opengov proposals?
-
Why have you chosen to respond only to the post that “makes Kus look good”, yet the question of advertising reporting is skipped? Does that data not “make you look good” ?
-
Why do you think you are in a position to say “This is my last answer” - this is an open forum where transparency of reporting is in question. Your anwers should be directed at the community, and dont think you are in a position to say you will no longer give answers - specifically when you said the questions are legitimate and you claim transparency.
-
Does your reporting of transparency have a cap, a maximum amount of questions you are willing to answer?
-
You say you are not a reporter but propagandist, which is surprising since this distinction was never clearly explained in your proposals - you applied for financing as a independent media company and you showed us your internal ethical guidelines which a) clearly say “accurate reporting”, “journalistic integrity”, “non speculation”. This is the complete opposite to “ropagandist for the productive ecosystem agents who vote.”
-
Now that we have established you are not a reporter but instead deal with propaganda for “productive ecosystem agents” - can you please post the guidelines and a checklist on how your operations grade ecosystem agents as productive?
- Would you say the following statement is correct: opengov funds KUS, KUS is a propagandist which decides on which ecosystem agent is productive and pushes that agents agenda?
- Would you say that in a system where propagandist operates with “productive ecosystem agents” the parameters of “productive” should be known to a wider Polkadot community or is this something you want to control yourself?
- Which productive ecosystem agents are you working for at this point? Can you list them?
-
Isn’t main purpose of KUS spreading Polkadot values outside of Polkadot with primary focus on obtaining new users for the ecosystem?
-
How can a news media outlet with journalistic integrity take “sides” within the ecosystem and still remain objective? A web2 analog would be a journalist from a known newspaper who is also a vocal representative of a specific political party.
-
Can you specify your previous financial or other collaboration with Crane (outside of MB) - please be specific, with dates and value transfers (if the financing was paid from OpenGov or other Polkadot funded incentives)
-
Can you explain your affiliation, membership status with Chaos Dao?
-
What does a propagandist following “accessibility, truth, fairness, integrity” do in a DAO that is closed to public with a single rule that prevents members from posting screenshots - good example would be Chaos DAO - what is your role there? Have you ever executed any propaganda within Chaos DAO that would lead to favorable financial outcomes for you, marketing bounty or any other bounty financing your operations?
-
Where are you delegating your OpenGov voting (please paste a link to explorer), and also, is there any DOT that your received as a payment from OpenGov part of your delegation to Chaos DAO? This question is trying to establish whether the DOT coming from OpenGov ended up in an opinionated and closed OpenGov formation.
-
Were you ever financed by the events bounty, and if so, can you please report when, how much and what were the specific deliverables?
-
One of the guidelines you are bound to inernally is “non speculative”. How would you grade your recent promotion of stopping DOT burning mechanism within the context of non speculative? Since the motion directly afects DOT emissions, it is speculative in its nature and you took a clear stance on the proposal. Is this coming from your “propagandist” side or your “journalistic” side. If its coming from “propagandist side” please show us your “propagandist” internal guidelines, so we can compare them to your “journalistic” guidelines, and please be clear which guidelines apply when you apply for funding next time.
-
How can you own a lead? Lead indeed can be owned and not only that, there are established agencies that generate leads and sell them to other businesses as commodity. So the question remains unanswered.
-
If you have thought about setting yourself to a same standard as you enforce for other projects (regarding inbound traffic and transaction metrics) and you say it is possible to implement it, why wait for Polkadot People? Why not tell us right now how you plan to implement it in the following weeks and how you plan to upgrade it once Polkadot People is out? This is a crucial metric for the whole ecosystem, it is shocking you have thought about it, never implemented it and even though you recognise the importance you deferred the implementation to an undefined time in the future?
-
Can you please disclose the company name that charges opengov for Kus operations?
-
Can you deploy total set of invoices (with masked personal data) across last 12 months?
-
Would you be open for an independent financial audit of your company, financed by OpenGov, executed by established legal teams such as Deloitte, Ernst&Young or similar?
@alice_und_bob what are your thoughts on the answers/reports provided by the Kus? You often arbitraged opengov proposals with a voice of reason, a common sense logic, so it feels weird we have not seen your opinion on this specific proposal.
To anyone else reading the questions and the answers, here are some guidelines to help you out:
-
A simple yes/no question that is not answered with a yes/no is called deflecting
-
This is a definition of condescension: “an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.”
-
This is a definition of propaganda: “Propaganda is the deliberate spread of information, such as facts, rumors, or lies, to influence public opinion and advance a particular cause or agenda, often in a biased or misleading way.”
-
And lastly: Think for yourself, question authority.
3 Likes
How about we just have a vote?
Every time Flez steps into a forum thread to lecture on efficiency, transparency, or community spending, it is hard not to shake your head. The irony is brutal.
Earlier in 2025, he asked for $50,000 for the Phase 1 Polkadot Cloud website. The pitch promised a polished portal, CMS, interactive charts, case studies, localization, and coretime access.
What was delivered? A beta site that looks like it was built for elementary school kids: bright colors, giant buttons, and layouts that wouldn’t impress anyone outside a kindergarten classroom.
Enterprise-ready? Measurable adoption? Operational flows? All absent.
The proposal was rejected.
Months later came a retroactive request for $42,330, covering roughly 498 hours of work. Tasks included minor updates, branding tweaks, and a few blog posts. This implies an hourly rate of $85 per hour for work that produced almost no measurable results.
| Period | Hours | Hourly Rate (USD) | Total (USD) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb–Mar 2025 | 53 | 85 | 4,505 | Early strategy and coordination |
| Apr–Jun 2025 | 325 | 85 | 27,625 | Website design, branding, minor updates |
| Jul 2025 | 120 | 85 | 10,200 | Launch preparations, community coordination |
| Total | 498 | 85 (avg) | 42,330 | Retroactive compensation request |
Meanwhile, Flez quietly collects modest curator fees and child-bounty payouts from UX bounties: routine curations, small design tweaks and vaguely labeled “improvements.” Nothing scandalous, but it is enough to underscore the hypocrisy: he criticizes the community for “overspending” and “poor ROI” while actively monetizing tasks with limited impact.
Now, he comes into threads like this one and acts shocked about spending, waving financial numbers around like a badge of moral superiority.
But the actual work? The reports, the KPIs, the outcomes? Almost entirely absent.
It’s not analysis, it’s a morality play in spreadsheets.
Flez has made a career of being the loudest moralizer while simultaneously submitting high-dollar requests, collecting curator fees, and creating a beta website that looks like a school project. The pattern is obvious: selective participation, ego-driven commentary and a complete disregard for actual results.
The takeaway is simple: if you’re going to cast stones about spending or efficiency, check your own record first. Otherwise, it’s just performative virtue signaling.
The real issue is the Marketing Bounty itself, the oversized curator salaries and the lack of accountability, regardless of whether it’s Flez or any other community member raising concerns.
2 Likes
I want to clarify at the outset that my intention is not to defend curators or any individual community member indiscriminately. However, it is important to consider the broader context and nature of their work. Curators in Polkadot operate as freelancers rather than employees. They have no employment contracts, no guaranteed salary, no benefits, and no insurance. Their work is inherently precarious: a bounty may be available one month and gone the next. This uncertainty carries tangible financial and professional risk that should be taken into account when evaluating compensation.
The hourly rates for Marketing Bounty curators generally range between $80 and $100 per hour. While this may appear significant at first glance, these figures represent gross earnings. Curators are responsible for paying self-employment taxes and applicable income taxes themselves, which reduces the net compensation to approximately $64–68 per hour at the lower end and $80–85 per hour at the higher end. Unlike a traditional employment arrangement, there is no safety net, no benefits, and no guarantee of future work. These factors fundamentally alter the meaning of “rate” and “compensation” compared to salaried positions.
It is also important to note that evaluating compensation without considering output, deliverables, and measurable impact is incomplete. Accountability requires understanding both the time and effort invested and the tangible results produced. Simply looking at gross pay or total DOT distributed provides a misleading picture of efficiency or effectiveness.
This analysis applies not only to the Marketing Bounty but to any bounty within the Polkadot ecosystem. In every case, the compensation for contributors must be understood in the context of freelance work, risk, and the irregularity of available opportunities, rather than judged in isolation as a fixed salary or benefit.
1 Like
Thank you for this AI generated exercise of precarious work definitions.
- If this comment truly is intended to describe precarious work and risks of curators, why open the discussion in Marketing Bounty reporting, why not open general discussion with other bounties and align, instead of forcing a precedent within ongoing reporting?
- While the gross hourly rates are probably realistic, what does a single curator have to do for 160 hours per month? Other bounties that you are referring to have an upper curation spending caps. Can Crane share us his daily task engagements and hours? Other bounties do that - every hour is connected to a specific task. Why is MB different?
- While your answers are attempt at distraction, lets pretend 16.000$ gross, a month for a single curator is a good precedence (taken into account the nature of precarious work), the main questions asked are yet to be answered. As you said “It is also important to note that evaluating compensation without considering output, deliverables, and measurable impact is incomplete” - can we please get answers to open questions, so we can evaluate within context of output, deliverables and measurable impact?
- You are part of the discussion and you see open questions. Are you personally interested in receiving additional information of the MB? If yes, which information you think it lacks? If no, why not?
Think for yourself, question authority.
3 Likes
@Mark65 so to quickly recap your ai-fluff piece:
• total opengov funding i’ve ever received directly: $0
• total funding i’ve ever received for polkadot.cloud work: $0
• total i received for building Polkadot Builder Party website: $0
• total i earn from helping curate the ux of polkadot: ~$2k a month max
the kindergarten narrative was cute though
let’s return to what matters: the mb, including crane, kus, and the other curators, still owe the community clear answers
3 Likes
May holders vote wisely this time.
5 Likes
Speaking from my perspective, Polkadot Staking Dashboard and Polkadot Cloud haven’t benefited from the Marketing Bounty since its inception despite our team performing consistently and generating tens of thousands of users.
Initiatives like Marketing Bounty should pour resources into attracting users to use cases and applications that have proven performance in order to maximise their potential. I haven’t witnessed this at all with the Marketing Bounty.
Shut it down.
The reality is that there are viable low-tax pathways for self-employed to avoid paying large amount of taxes:
- For digital nomads, becoming a non-resident in their home country and therefore avoid paying tax in that country
- For small teams, register an entity in a low-tax jurisdiction like Hong Kong where tax rate is 8-16% for corporations.
- Free zones like Dubai if your income warrants it. I know people in the Polkadot ecosystem who have gone this route.
Get a tax advisor and understand all your options.
4 Likes
Sorry for using AI, but I am a native Spanish speaker, so I need some help to express myself clearly in English.
Anyway, I see a lot of frustration and bitterness in your comments. It is obvious you took it personally because the community voted “NAY” on your proposals, not just once, but several times. But if you respond with emotion instead of facts, you lose all credibility. Objectivity matters.
Of course, some initiatives like Blast, the Kus and a few others are clearly expensive and should have gone through OpenGov from the beginning, instead of being decided behind closed doors by a small group of curators. That is a fair point.
However, in my opinion, most of your original analysis and the arguments you made in this thread are based on personal opinion, not objective reasoning. That risks creating a false sense of logic. What you think is rational is actually just your disappointment talking.
And let’s be honest: I’m already seeing people in OpenGov voting “AYE” out of loyalty or habit, just to win favor with the Web3 Foundation and position themselves for future rewards. Very “decentralized” indeed.
Given the size of the budget, I expect a more open and receptive stance to forum feedback. Decisions and communication from you and Crane have introduced confusion and frustration, despite the expertise you cite. The core issue is a lack of vision and the failure to make the bounty clearly mission driven, which points to deeper structural problems.
I do not believe there was bad faith. We all want the ecosystem to succeed. But acknowledging shortcomings matters, especially when outcomes affect reputations beyond a single team. At this point, anything associated with Chaos DAO faces a stigma, and I have seen strong contributors step back as a result. We need leadership that listens, aligns to a clear mission, and rebuilds trust through transparent goals and measurable outcomes.
Not the likes of you, but you are more than welcome to stay in the ecosystem, sure not managing any of the funds we do have left.
1 Like
The core problem is the lack of real expertise and experience across most bounties. Without qualified operators, strategy drifts, decisions lack rigor, and outcomes suffer. We need a mission‑driven umbrella that defines clear goals and KPIs for the entire program, and bounties that fit under it, staffed by proven practitioners with accountability to rebuild trust and deliver results.
1 Like
That wasn’t approved. Let’s keep the discussion constructive. The tone here is slipping and that’s part of what we need to improve as an ecosystem. I’m asking you to dial it back so we can focus on solutions, clear next steps, and a positive outcome for everyone.
Preach.
2 Likes
The sad irony of this is that there is ‘no money left’* for tools to increase accountability - which we should have had in place at the start of OpenGov - because it was all spunked up the wall by massive unaccountable spends.
1 Like
Interesting point here. Wondering about how many projects quoted OpenGov a high tax residence to only pay said taxes in a different low(er) tax jurisdiction 
. It is impossible to know for sure in many cases as those documents should remain private and not be exposed to the public eye of OpenGov. In any event, looking at pre-tax budgets only should be the norm moving forward. Gross pay numbers should be the only ones that matter for calculations and budgets regardless of what the proposer argues it’s going to be paying in taxes, this fact simply cannot be verified.
Was there any relevant information on that link? the site seems to be gone now.
