Next Steps for the Ambassador Program

Ambassador Programme
1

Phew! Who said a decentralized governance system would be easy?

Let’s talk about the Ambassador Program and discuss the next steps for it.

Where Are We Today?

From my point of view, the Ambassador Program is in a pretty chaotic and formative state. This is not unexpected for a brand new decentralized organization without leadership or specific directives.

We should all take the time to look back at the initial proposal for the Ambassador Program:

Truthfully, even I only recently read the proposal, and I immediately made some comments about it based on what I was seeing happening with the Head Ambassador proposals:

Let’s talk about some of these things in more detail than a Twitter post can cover.

Head Ambassadors

The Ambassador Program has spots for up to 21 people as Head Ambassadors. It is pretty incredible how quickly the slots are filling up:

image
image528×937 139 KB

Even more incredible is how many of them are actually being elected into the role.

To qualify for the role of a Head Ambassador, a candidate must:

  • Commit to the role as a full-time job.
  • Be able to represent Polkadot effectively to new people and businesses.
  • Be fluent in the philosophy underpinning Web3 technologies.
  • Have a deep understanding of Polkadot’s high-level design decisions.
  • Be knowledgeable about how Polkadot compares to other blockchain tech stacks.
  • Be familiar with typical user stories like staking, participating in governance, and building parachains.
  • Demonstrate sufficient skill, understanding, and communication ability.
  • Be capable of working autonomously in the best interest of Polkadot.

My guess is that there are not even 21 total people in the Polkadot ecosystem who would qualify to be a Head Ambassador today.

Ambassador Salaries

Why is there such an influx of Head Ambassadors?

Well, the Ambassador manifesto proposes that each Head Ambassador will receive a $10,000 monthly salary. They can also put themselves in a “passive” mode, for example if they are taking some time off, and still receive $2,000 monthly payments.

This is a lot of money for many people, and all the incentive needed to bring out a lot of people to try and join the program. The incentivization is obvious because as far as I know, there is not a SINGLE candidate asking to enter the Ambassador Program at the other levels (Senior Ambassador, Ambassador, and Candidate Ambassador), all of which do NOT receive a monthly salary.

Instead, these lower-level ambassadors are expected to make funding proposals to the Treasury to cover expenses or recognize exceptional work.

What is sad to me is that if people truly believed that the Ambassador Program was good, and they wanted to participate in it, they probably wouldn’t put themselves directly into the highest role possible on day 0. This would be evidence that they are NOT just in the program for the easy money, and that they are looking to grow their skills to qualify in the ways expected of the Head Ambassadors. It is very hard for me to see today who actually is in the program for the right reasons, and who is trying to take advantage of a chaotic situation.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Now that we have a basic background of what has been going on, I would like to express some of my opinions on where we need to be headed.

Do We Need to Take Any Immediate Actions?

Probably not.

The current Ambassador Program is of little harm or risk to Polkadot as far as I can see.

Since the Ambassador Program is not currently funded, it costs the Polkadot DAO nothing for this group to start organizing itself. Before anyone can actually get paid to be in the program, they first need to pass a proposal that will fund the Ambassador treasury.

My strong recommendation to the Polkadot DAO is that we should not fund the Ambassador Program until we start to see organization, clear expectations, and tangible output from the members.

What About Working Head Ambassadors?

While the Ambassador Program is not funded, my recommendation for the current Head Ambassadors is to follow the practices recommended to the other Ambassador levels and make proposals to the Treasury to cover expenses and recognize exceptional work.

I would see no problem for working Head Ambassadors to make monthly requests to the Treasury for their full-time work, and get the $10,000 salary as expected.

That being said, I think this will also bring to light a lot of facts:

  • Who is in the program for the right reason, and who was just looking for easy money?
  • Who is actually doing work and deserving of a salary?
  • What kind of work and output are expected from Head Ambassadors?

I suspect a lot of the main work needed from Head Ambassadors at this time will actually just be organizing the Ambassador Program and answering those questions. For there to be any faith in the program, we need evidence that they are “capable of working autonomously.” Head Ambassadors will need to hold themselves and the other Ambassadors to the standards outlined by the approved manifesto, or else we should not expect to uphold any of it.

I also think this could be a fair time for people to “adjust” into a full-time role as a Head Ambassador, as required by the program. I can understand that some already elected Head Ambassadors might have existing jobs, and that the whole program is quite uncertain at this time.

For those ambassadors, I recommend requesting a fraction of the expected total salary, representing the amount of time you spend on the Ambassador Program. And hopefully by the time the Ambassador Program is directly funded, you will have already transitioned into a full-time role.

For those who are currently elected as a Head Ambassador, but do not qualify for the position, I ask that you recognize that and demote yourselves into the appropriate ambassador role. Based on my recommendations above, you will not get paid any differently being a Head Ambassador versus the other tiers. If you bring $10,000 of value to Polkadot per month, I believe you will be compensated for that work.

However, continuing to take up the position where you are not qualified is a grift and should be thought of as a malicious action. I think this will harm your chances to actually become a Head Ambassador in the future, gain the trust of the Polkadot DAO, or participate in other parts of Polkadot. Don’t wait for us to “catch you” and push you out. Hold yourself accountable.

Accountability

Unfortunately, the way the Ambassador Program is set up, there is very little accountability to the members of the organization.

This is something that needs to be immediately solved if the Ambassador Program wants to evolve past these early formation stages.

The configuration of the pallet should require that Head Ambassadors submit proof of work while requesting salaries, or they should be periodically checked to maintain their role, as is done with the Technical Fellowship.

Another option would be to have a dedicated Ambassador Secretary who takes it upon themselves to act as the person who will show evidence for the output of the program and take accountability for the results of the other Head Ambassadors.

What Else?

Truthfully, I have more opinions and ideas about the Ambassador Program, but I want to mostly keep these to myself and allow the ambassadors themselves to make a plan, and then see where we can go from there.

Action Items:

  • I would like to hear from the current Head Ambassadors about their view on the current and near-future state of the Ambassador Program.
  • I would like to hear from the community and the Polkadot DAO what their expectations of the Ambassadors are.
29 Likes
2

Hey Shawn!

Thank you for your comments, it is always good to see your involvement in the governance of Polkadot, contributing ideas and approaches.

I would like to clarify that no one has applied for another level because the first ones to join the program are the Head Ambassadors and as the ambassador program manifesto mentions “Head Ambassadors can only be appointed (or removed) via general token-holder referendum on a new, Ambassador Admin track. This track should be configured in a similar fashion to the existing Fellowship Admin track.”.

As for the other roles in the Ambassador program, their promotion is managed directly by the Head Ambassadors themselves. Therefore, their inclusion by the Fellowship Admin Track would not be appropriate, since this mechanism, which entails a greater difficulty in its application and a high entry barrier due to the 5000 DOTs required for the decision deposit, could be approached with a greater sense for the incorporation of the respective Head Ambassadors with the participation of all the token holders.

1 Like
3

For me this is one of the biggest drawbacks in this new Ambassador Program: bosses selecting their minions.

I have many friends as selected Head Ambassadors but I feel uncomfortable with the fact that they would nominate me as a lower level Ambassador.

This program was supposed to remove the possibility of nepotism, not to put in on overdrive!

I urge the selected HAs to redesign the entire program before heads start to roll (no pun intended). It is a ripe breeding ground for mudslinging and political backstabbing.

5 Likes
4

I am not sure I entirely agree with your point here.

  • Do you agree that if the Ambassador Admin Track can elect head ambassadors, it should be able to elect any level of ambassador?
  • Do you agree there are people who are applying (and getting approved) as Head Ambassador who do not meet the qualifications?
  • How should we look at someone who clearly does not meet the criteria for Head Ambassador, but applies anyway?
    • Are they malicious or ignorant? Is there a difference?

There are clearly many flaws with the initial seeding of this program, but worst of it all is that the Head Ambassador role is supposed to be the pinnacle of contributing and representing Polkadot, but everyone is applying to it from day one.

People who truly understand the program, understand their position in the Polkadot ecosystem, and value the success of the program would not lower the standards of what it means to be a Head Ambassador, but instead place themselves in a position where they can grow up to the expectations we want to have for the role.

I can definitely understand that early joiners may not have had all this context or viewpoints, but I do think, now that we are discussing things more and presenting these ideas, that it is their responsibility to step down from the role, else risk being seen as a grifter. If the program is going to be successful, we will go through a process which will retain only the qualified candidates anyway, so its either these folks will force us to kick them out, leaving a permanent scar on their reputation, or they can help be part of the change we want to see in the ecosystem.

I think in this situation you can skip the nepotism, and ask to be placed as an ambassador through public referendum. Remember that you can do anything on-chain with a 51% vote of the DOT holders. There is no reason you need to follow any specific processes.

That being said, I agree that probably we do need to rethink how candidates are placed into the program and promoted. In general, the best way to do it would of course be merit based… but do you have other ideas?

2 Likes
5

Indeed, from a technical point of view, it is possible to include additional roles. At the time of constructing the extrinsic that is submitted to a community vote, you can specify the rank to which you intend to assign the individual within the Collective.

However, I believe there is a barrier that is represented in the decision deposit of 5,000 DOTs to perform a ref in the Fellowship Admin Track. This barrier significantly limits participation and, in practice, restricts nomination through this mechanism to Head Ambassadors.

In fact, I believe that this aspect deserves a thorough review and analysis by the Polkadot community. It should be evaluated whether the current amount of the decision deposit is adequate and whether there are alternatives to encourage greater participation in the Ambassador selection process directly on-chain.

I cannot really speak for all Head Ambassadors on this point. Indeed, it is complex to determine exactly whether all those elected by token holders fully meet the criteria established in the program. The selection process is based on community voting, and each token holder makes their own decisions in choosing among the candidates.

It is important to keep in mind that we cannot judge the intentions of each individual, only their actions directly. I believe that qualifying candidates who do not meet the criteria as malicious individuals would be a serious and unfair mistake.

The program itself allows for the removal of any elected member who does not meet the standards set forth or who acts in a manner contrary to the values of the program.
In fact, I believe that instead of focusing on accusations we should work together to strengthen the Ambassador program and ensure that it fulfills its purpose of “fostering awareness, adoption and ultimate success of Polkadot.”

I personally believe that you Shawn, with all that you know, could greatly assist many of the elected Head Ambassadors, in fulfilling that goal, which I am very sure is a goal we have in common in Polkadot.

7

Every existing head ambassador has made it through this restriction, so there is no reason why they couldn’t have applied to a more appropriate role.

I don’t think we fundamentally agree on the exclusivity of who should be a Head Ambassador. It should be intentionally hard to make a request to be a Head Ambassador. I would question whether anyone who does not have the decision deposit has “already made substantial contributions to the success of Polkadot”, else they would have been paid in DOT for their contributions.

And even if they do not, anyone can provide the decision deposit on behalf of the candidate, so it would be their job, acting as the highest representative of the network, to find people who support them enough to provide that deposit. So you can see this high barrier to entry is not a mistake, but in fact a feature.

Not that hard…

  • Do you already have a full-time job?
  • Are you fluent describing Polkadot’s technology stack and high level decisions?
  • Can you compare Polkadot to other existing protocols?
  • Have you demonstrated ability to communicate publicly these ideas?
    • Share some youtube videos?
  • etc…

There is only 17 people on that list currently as elected Head Ambassadors. You think it will be that hard to figure out who should actually be a Head Ambassador and who has taken advantage of the early and chaotic start of the program?

I agree we should NOT make any assumptions about peoples early behavior since it was all chaotic and fun to start. But as we are trying to develop the program into a mature and functioning group with high standards, people should understand if they are actually right for this role, and step down to a lower rank if they are not.

It is one thing to have someone step down, and another one for someone who is unqualified to reject that premise, and be forced out by governance. Someone who wants to maintain their reputation in the ecosystem should not take the second route.

Someone who wants to grift the treasury will try and shortcut their way to the top, and they are not in alignment with the community or the Polkadot Network.

I have always been happy to help assist people in this ecosystem. This is why I am even spending the time to create these posts and try to propagate ideas and sentiment.

However, I think you again misunderstand the role of a Head Ambassador. These should NOT be the kind of people that I need to:

  • teach about polkadot
  • help structure their own organization
  • convince them of how to navigate the governance system
  • how to read and follow a manifesto
  • etc…

Head ambassadors should be mentors to the candidate ambassadors and base level ambassadors, as I will be to them too. But we cannot have the blind leading the blind. We must hold Head Ambassadors to the highest standard, else the whole program is useless.

12 Likes
8

Hello, my name is Erick from Mexico, and I appreciate your thoughts on the future of the ambassador program.

I come from the ambassador program of the old Parity structure. I just want to share my experience with the old program to avoid making the same mistakes in the future Polkadot ambassador program.

When I joined the ambassador program, I knew the selection was every 3 to 4 months, and there was a follow-up on the activities the candidate performed for the ambassador application. Along the way, I met people who were genuinely committed to learning about the ecosystem and contributing their bit to it, as the main motivation for a candidate to become an ambassador was the technology that Polkadot and its various parachains offer. One of these reasons motivated me to apply as an ambassador in 2022. At that time, I knew there was no payment, just a small reward of 500 USD for obtaining the title. Many people applied and carried out activities, such as hosting Twitter Spaces to educate about Polkadot, creating Twitter threads, and some had the opportunity to organize meetups in their cities. However, once they passed the candidacy filter and received their 500 USD, they remained inactive and no longer showed interest in the ecosystem. I believe the ambassador selection process was too lenient back then, and some people just joined to exploit the bounties with fake events, causing conflicts with the old ambassador program.

Interestingly, among the few who stayed in the old ambassador program, we continued contributing to the ecosystem by educating on social media, holding workshops, and representing Polkadot at events.

In my opinion, if a candidate is interested in applying to be an ambassador, they should demonstrate that they are genuinely interested in the technology and the community, not just in receiving a salary. The salary motivates one to keep building and doing positive things in their region. But we should also consider continuously evaluating the candidates’ dedication, just like in a company when hiring an assistant for a specific area. Even if they have a degree, for example, in Business Administration, they start as an assistant and then get promoted based on their great performance. And even after they have been promoted, their performance should continue to be evaluated through reports of their activities and the impact those activities have in their areas.

I think, as you mentioned, demonstrating proof of work through OpenGov and having the community (Polkadot DAO) vote on whether they should be promoted to Ambassador, Senior, or HA.

In Mexico, the Polkadot community was born out of a need: the lack of significant ecosystem events that did not consider the country. From there, the Polkadot community in Mexico was born. This is a unique experience because the community was created for a cause, and that’s where a group of enthusiastic ecosystem people gathered and formed Polkadot Mexico. Although we did not receive a salary at that time, we supported ourselves with bounties to organize meetups or side events. On social media, we organized Twitter Spaces in Spanish with parachains so that the Mexican community already in web3 could learn more about Polkadot. We also created a YouTube channel to upload educational content on how to use the ecosystem tools. This is what we can share from our experience as Polkadot ambassadors from the previous program. I believe we are a clear example that technology brought us together for a good cause since there is a large web3 community in Mexico, specifically Ethereum, which has sub-communities in different parts of the country. That’s why, when we saw this issue in 2022, we decided to grow and represent Polkadot in Mexico.

This year, since January began, we have started taking the next step in representing Polkadot at major technological events in Mexico. In February 2024, I participated in an event at Torre BBVA in CDMX about blockchain and technology, where I presented to talk about Polkadot. In fact, I submitted a retroactive proposal to OpenGov to cover my expenses and a small reward. In April 2024, there was also an important event where we could represent Polkadot with a booth at Jalisco Talent Land 2024, but due to timing, as we were in discussions with the organizers, we couldn’t submit the proposal in time to represent Polkadot at the event with a booth and a talk on the main stage. However, as a community and ambassadors, we decided to fund an event in Guadalajara ourselves, parallel to Talent Land. So, even though we couldn’t submit the proposal on time to get the funds, since the bounties were being renewed and were not yet operational, we acted as ambassadors to do something with Polkadot. I believe this shows an ambassador’s true interest in wanting to represent an ecosystem driven by technology and community, not money. BBVA Tower - Side Event Talent Land 2024 - Workshop - Puebla

We are currently applying as HA to continue expanding education and opportunities for the ecosystem in Mexico. If ecosystems like Ethereum are succeeding in Mexico, for example, with the Hacia el Voto Digital hackathon, where a Substrate track was participated in, and two members of the collective provided support to the hackers participating in the Substrate track. Even though the event was organized by the Ethereum community, our relationships with web3 communities in Mexico allowed us to join the hackathon in time. What sometimes limits our participation in such impactful events is funding, as some of us pay out of pocket and then submit retroactive proposals for reimbursement. But with HA, we can cover costs to attend such events in advance and represent Polkadot effectively.Track Substrate Voto Digital Gobierno de Mexico - Video Hackathon Vote Digital - Hackathon Vote Digital Inauguracion y agradecimiento a Polkadot Mexico

6 Likes
9

Here I support this part that Shawn mentions, for example in the decision deposit on our proposal, Rish from KILT Protocol supported us, the KILT team knows me for the educational contributions at events represented by KILT Protocol, in fact in December 2023 I held a workshop about KILT in CDMX and it finances it in the governance of KILT WORKSHOP KILT - Workshop KILT DID and Credentials

6 Likes
10

As most of you are aware, I am a former Polkadot Head Ambassador. I believe that current “whale’s” vision of the ambassador program is a BIG MISTAKE and I’m glad that more and more people are starting to realize this.

My suggestions and ideas regarding the next steps for Ambassador Program at side topic:

Almost all of my predictions regarding Ambassador Program (whale"s version) was quite accurate

I also suggested to return to initial idea of the Polkadot Ambassador Program I posted half an year ago:

8 Likes
11

Hi there! César here from PMC (Polkadot Mexican Collective)

Thanks for sharing your point of view, Shawn! I should say I agree with the fact that HAs should know how the Polkadot system works and have a deep understanding of how to use most of the protocols built on the ecosystem.

As a collective member, I want to say that in the team we have worked together since 2022, and sometimes we push some events without receiving funds from the treasury. The fact of being part of the same community is something that we appreciate and keeps us together.

From my perspective, proof of work is essential in this new Ambassador Program. This will maintain the competition among those who work harder, and the compensation will be equivalent to the work done.

3 Likes
12

I would leave the design and implementation of the Ambassador Program amd other people and culture initiatives to the Collaboration Fellowship.

The what?

We don’t have one yet, but we could.

13

The treasury is paying 21 HEAD ambassadors 10k USD a month? Twenty one? They don’t even have any specific directives?

Great example of out of control treasury spending. We should just burn the treasury or air drop it to all DOT holders at this point. If the treasury is going to be squandered, the whole community may as well benefit instead of just a handful of insiders.

4 Likes
14

FWIW the Treasury has not paid the new HAs anything yet, but yes, the referendum to set up the Ambassador Collective passed in OpenGov.

2 Likes
15

I find this post very timely, and as a strong advocate of meritocracy, I believe that, as you mentioned, applications from people who have not spent at least a certain period of time in lower positions should not be accepted (I am not referring to anyone in particular because I do not know all the selected candidates).

The new HAs have a great task ahead of them to create a clear, precise, and transparent program from the ground up.

I also agree that the salary should be proportional to the work done; it would not be fair for everyone to receive the same pay while some do less or more than others for the growth of Polkadot.

I would like to see HAs fully organized and highlighting their skills and strengths. Perhaps knowing which HA to turn to regarding their area of expertise could be a plus for the community.

There are HAs from different countries, so it would be logical to see Polkadot’s knowledge grow in these regions in the future, thanks to the work of the HAs.

In short, as I mentioned before, they have a great task ahead of them, and I hope and wish them all the success in their roles.

5 Likes
16

I would like to share some concerns about this Head Ambassadors election. First, it is unfortunate that almost all candidates for these positions already have one or more other jobs! This is a reality.

In my professional career, I have had the chance to work closely with public and political leaders. For more than five years, I have been fighting for blockchain to be seen as a tool that could change public policies and economic models. But often, blockchain is confused with cryptocurrencies, which are known for being speculative.

Institutions and big companies often criticize us for being too technical and economically opportunistic. For example, in this election, a few influential people (whales, as we say) seem to control the decisions. The same individuals do all needed to stay anonymous and move to places with easier regulations.

Of course, everyone is free to make their own choices, but we need to think about how public decision-makers see this. It does not make them want to trust us. With this new ambassador program and this election, we are not sending a good message…

We promised change and a reorganization of value chains, but what has really changed? Are we doing worse than before?
At some point, we need to make clear conclusions about the directions and choices of Polkadot’s community. Where are we now? What is our real contribution to change? What is our conviction rate?

Only results matter, and for now, they are not what some people hoped for.

3 Likes
17

I have had the privilege of working closely with public and political leaders. For more than five years, I have been advocating for blockchain as a transformative tool for public policies and economic models. However, our efforts are often overshadowed by the common misconception that equates blockchain solely with speculative cryptocurrencies.

Institutions and large corporations frequently criticize us for being overly technical and economically opportunistic. For instance, in the current election, influential individuals{whales}, as we call them seem to have a disproportionate influence over decision-making. These individuals often prioritize anonymity and relocate to jurisdictions with more lenient regulations.

While everyone is entitled to their choices, we must consider how these actions affect public decision-makers’ trust in us. With the new ambassador program and the ongoing election, the message we are sending is far from ideal. We promised change and a reorganization of value chains, yet it seems little has changed. Are we doing worse than before?

this said clearly almost 80% have different other positions, more ever in Polkadot and its well known to some of the most voters

It’s crucial to evaluate the directions and decisions of the Polkadot community critically. Where do we stand now? What is our tangible contribution to change? What is our conviction rate?

point of clarity
Imagine a vast forest with a variety of animals. The wise old owl, representing blockchain, promised to bring order and prosperity to the forest. However, the cunning foxes, symbolizing speculative actors, began to dominate the scene, causing distrust among the other animals. The owl then decided to gather all the animals, including the foxes, and proposed a council where every creature had a voice. By working together and sharing knowledge, the forest gradually transformed into a harmonious and thriving ecosystem, where the true potential of the owl’s wisdom was realized.

1 Like
18

This is my first time commenting in the forum and I want to thank Shawn for encouraging me to do so. I have been around the Polkadot ecosystem for quite awhile and involved with various projects from a communications standpoint. The first point I will make is that I think most of the people commenting above believe that Head Ambassadors is very different to general ambassadors. Everyone that holds some DOT somewhere is an ambassador in a way.

As mentioned, Head Ambassadors should show knowledge of the tech and demonstrate their fluency in Web3. However, there are different types of ambassadors required for the benefit of the community overall. Taking the example of three ambassadors I have come to know: Irina, Zoe and Filippo. Each brings something unique to the table in terms of their communications style, business development expertise, their capacity to educate about Polkadot and numerous other characteristics that make them standout both in and outside the community.

Perhaps an approach would be to have open nominations for future ambassadors and also a clear distinction between the various types of Head Ambassadors needed. Although I agree that Head ambassadors should be mentors to other ambassadors, this mentorship may also take different forms.

One last point, on the idea that Ambassadors should not have other career commitments and that being an Ambassador should be their full-time role. I believe that this could be a mistake as we continue to strive to solve problems with the technology and do more outreach. I would ask the question, who would you consider to be an amazing candidate for the role of Head Ambassador and why? Once the answers are out there it might be clear that they bring much more than a knowledge of the current Polkadot ecosystem to the table.

You can’t have extended reach into other industries and ecosystems if you are full-time concentrated on showing off how beneficial you are within the community - Here is an interesting read about commercial diplomacy that may provide some valuable insights - Commercial Diplomacy: The Ambassador’s Role in Boosting Economic Competitiveness - BCIU

2 Likes
19

Hello Lilly,

I’d like to answer through a very simple question about this last point. There were clear rules

If a rule exists, what credibility do people have, and what credibility does the ecosystem have, if the first thing they do is not respect it?

Before this new initiative, there was an ambassador program with these same people, but unpaid. With the introduction of salary, it’s a gold rush, no matter what the rule and conditions required.

Secondly, in terms of community voting, take a close look at some results. Some ambassadors are elected with a majority of “No” votes. Does that seem fair to you?

20

FYI, with the current on-chain version of the Head Ambassador Program:

Root, Fellowship Admin, and Head Ambassadors tracks can promote and demote/remove ambassadors from the program. These same tracks can also set up configurations defining the monthly active and passive salaries per rank (e.g., Head Ambassador rank), minimum promotion period and the period per rank in which a member must submit and get approved evidence of their work. If the evidence is not submitted and approved within the defined period, the member can be demoted by anyone (someone needs to submit a transaction).

4 Likes
21

You are right but I think there should be minimum, fundamental knowledge. As an analogy, in engineering school almost all engineers take the same classes in the first year, and then specialize in the later years. When looking at Principal Engineers for a passenger jet, you probably want a variety of viewpoints from aerodynamics, electronics, software, but probably not someone who studied literature and writes fiction. The leaders of the project should be able to work on a shared understanding of engineering principles.

It’s great that there is diversity in expertise and communication styles, that’s what allows us to accomplish complex things. But if someone cannot clearly articulate the basics of Polkadot or recognize the boundaries of their understanding, then IMO they are not qualified to be a “Head Ambassador” of the protocol. (Example: Anyone saying you need 5,000 DOT to be an HA.)

The title brings with it authority (see e.g. Coin Telegraph quoting “the” Polkadot Head Ambassador) and this authority comes with responsibility. Electing HAs who are not capable of accurately and articulately communicating about Polkadot is a liability to the network, thus my opinion that candidates should need to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of Polkadot.

I agree with you on this, it should not be about their exclusivity to the role but rather the value that they bring. The Ambassador Program is supposed to be quite large (hundreds, if not thousands, of Ambassadors). People who are on boards of companies often have other jobs, but they are on the board because they have a track record of making good decisions for organizations at scale. If people can bring this value to the Ambassador Program while having another job, I think that is fine.

3 Likes