Next Steps for the Ambassador Program

Ambassador Programme
22

What is the configuration for this time?

I see “EvidenceSize” config, but nothing about evidence period or anything like that.

23

@shawntabrizi It has yet to be set with the core-fellowship::set_params call. these are parameters - link.

2 Likes
24

As a Los Angeles,CA-based Sr Ambassador (previous program) and PBA Alum, I agree with Shawn about the program needing more structure (and what I also want to see) and his comment re: next steps as “the HA’s organizing the Ambassador Program and answering the questions” posed. You may also follow discussions in the the #head-ambassador channel (and related ambassador channels) on the Polkadot Discord. Weigh in with your opinion here (or there), but ultimately let’s (together or via the HAs) just do the work and get it done.

2 Likes
25

FYI there are currently no Senior Ambassadors, Ambassadors, or Ambassador Candidates, since the Collective is new. Right now, there is an initial cohort of Head Ambassadors only, and they are charged with creating the structure to fill the lower ranks.

1 Like
26

I have written a proposal for how I would want to see the ambassador program evolve:

Looking for feedback on the HackMD, and to continue the conversation here about the key ideas which are different from the current Ambassador Program Manifesto.

Some of the key changes:

  • An explicit meta-management / secretary role which is salaried.
  • More clarity on the expectations of a salaried role. (could probably be improved too)
  • No limit to number of ambassadors at any rank.
  • Objective measurements on how ambassadors should qualify to be promoted.
  • Ambassador payments focus on work done and outcomes achieved.
7 Likes
27

I would agree with most of what you say here Joe. However, one note to think about is the psychology of human behavior when considering the key traits of ambassadors and leaders of projects in general. A base level understanding of the technology should be easy enough to digest and comprehend for any qualified candidate with a demonstrated track record in academia and business life but what is often underestimated is the received messages from the public communication of the tech. As you mention, the leaders of the project should be able to work on a shared understanding of the engineering principles, these are not the ambassadors, nor should they be wasting their time trying to become ambassadors unless they have a love for education and have developed an authoritative tone of voice that makes an audience sit up and listen. I refer to psychologist Daniel Kahneman, “The confidence people have in their beliefs is not a measure of the quality of evidence but of the coherence of the story the mind has managed to construct.” If the community begin to consider how the messages are being received and from who then it can inform whether or not the right information is getting through to people.

1 Like
28

Let’s start by reviewing the history of Polkadot Ambassadors Program!

Originally, as I recall, it was in 2019 when the Web3 Foundation first introduced the concept of Polkadot Ambassadors Program. Over the next three years, this attracted a large number of volunteers to join the ranks of Polkadot Ambassadors. Regrettably, as the head of ambassadors for the Chinese community, PolkaWorld rarely participated in regular meetings or engaged in specific ambassador activities. This was because, even without the head of ambassador title, PolkaWorld listed many OKRs in its treasury proposals to continue contributing to Polkadot community education, just as we have done for the past five years! However, the initial ambassador program lacked certain incentives, leading to its poor operation. Honestly, I’m not even sure if there are still regular ambassador meetings now.

Then, about five months ago, Giotto proposed an attention-grabbing ambassador program: as long as you become a Head Ambassador, you will receive a $10,000 monthly reward, but there are only 21 positions! As of now, the status of this program is that all 21 positions are filled, but many people are still applying, even attempting to use referendums to displace those who have already become Head Ambassadors. Now, some community opinion leaders believe this ambassador program has certain shortcomings or issues, resulting in a situation where we may not have truly elected quality Polkadot Ambassadors. The original proposal lacked accountability to ensure an ideal outcome, and we should not automatically pay $10,000 to “Head Ambassadors” who may have done nothing more than posting a few tweets, as such behavior could be fraudulent. This does not mean that all current Head Ambassadors are incapable of representing Polkadot well or are engaging in fraudulent activities; rather, it highlights that we lack a mechanism to prevent fraudulent behavior.

Many active participants in the community have already put forward their suggestions and ideas. Apologies for not being able to participate in many live or Space discussions due to time zone differences, but I would like to share some of our basic views for discussion.

  1. The number of ambassadors should not be limited; we should hope for this number to be as large as possible. We should not define the quantity, but we should define the levels.
  2. We should not directly define ambassador salaries, instead, we should grant ambassadors of specific levels the right to apply for treasury funds.
  3. If we are to establish an Ambassador Collective, our main goal should be how to ensure this collective includes more and more professional and qualified ambassadors, rather than focusing on how much money the collective has or whether it should be automatically distributed to ambassadors.
  4. Regarding this Ambassador Collective, we should establish a manifesto to clearly define the collective’s goals, levels, how to join, how to be promoted or demoted, how to exit, how to communicate and provide feedback, and how to manage the sub-treasury under the collective.

To make our ideas more concrete, let’s take PolkaWorld as an example!

In reality, PolkaWorld is a community member that has successfully applied for 13 proposals and 5 Tips, dating back to March 2021, and collaborated with the Web3 Foundation for two years before that. This demonstrates that PolkaWorld is a long-term builder with a good reputation. So, if we define that community members who have successfully applied for more than 10 proposals can apply to become founding members of the ambassador collective, organizations like PolkaWorld can submit proposals. I believe this initial filter will exclude most potentially “bad” ambassador members because it sets a threshold.

The key is, according to our rules, the founding members or Head Ambassadors elected by the community through a referendum do not directly receive a “salary”; instead, they have the right to apply for the collective’s funds based on their future plans.

If you are not a long-standing community OG like PolkaWorld but a newcomer, you need to prove yourself through small tip applications first. Whether by producing articles, videos, building your Twitter presence, etc., you need to demonstrate your passion for Polkadot, your knowledge of various aspects of Polkadot, and your long-term contributions. For example, after successfully applying for 3 or 5 tips, you can apply to join the collective and submit proposals to request funds from the collective, with all ambassadors who have reached a certain level voting on your proposal.

By doing so, we should gather those who truly love Polkadot and professional talents from various fields for Polkadot, rather than attracting “fraudsters” and opportunists looking for quick gains. This also solves the problem of whales having absolute control over certain proposals and ensures proposals are voted on by experts in the relevant field.

3 Likes
29

I think we actually largely agree, and perhaps my example of a different engineering project was not the best. I completely agree with you that the engineers may not be in the best position to be the best storytellers (even if they have the skills, their perspective is so different that it may not always connect).

If I may try again with another analogy, the ambassadors of a country may not be lawyers or experts in constitutional law. But they should be able to speak fluently about the principles on which the nation they represent are governed and practical procedures (e.g. how representatives get elected, how proposals become law, etc.).

So when I say that ambassadors should be able to speak fluently about Polkadot, I don’t mean that they should have to be an engineer and read the code. I mean that they should understand and be able to articulate the principles on which Polkadot is designed, the motivation for its existence, and practical matters like how a proposal becomes a referendum, how it can pass or be rejected, and what happens when it passes, etc. The abilities of Head Ambassadors in these areas should be beyond question.

Without this ability, I don’t think they can tell the story we want them to tell.

1 Like
30

Agreed but I would also add to your point that the way in which ambassadors articulate the principles is crucial when it comes to how the principles are received. Using aesthetic forms of expression is a skillset that is often undervalued and I am not sure if it can be funded into existence.

2 Likes
31

Hello,

It’s crucial to understand that the Ambassador Program is indeed in a formative phase. This transitional period is expected as we adapt to a decentralized governance structure without predefined leadership roles. It was not like that before and you cannot expect us, Head Ambassadors to make everything ready in a few weeks.

Right now, we are working on the structure, requirements (tests),events plans for speaking, budgeting and many more. Please have a look at our Discord channels for more details.

We are also open for one-on-one or group calls to discuss program improvements. That might be a better way to shape the Ambassador Program, than throwing all out randomly in the forum while we are working on putting it into a good form. While the feedback written before is surely useful and important, honestly, this kind of chaos is not really helping us in a nice way.

Moving forward, I recommend focusing on constructive discussions that strengthen the program and reflect the spirit of our innovative and collaborative community.

For everyone, in the future, please start a discussion with us first on the Ambassador Open Forum or on Discord so we can move forward your enquiries without creating negative feelings in and out of the community.

How and what to do? For example let us know what you’d like to see on the monthly reports of Head and Senior Ambassadors - as this is one of our current process we are working on figuring out.

Of course, your feedback written above is well-noted and is going to be incorporated in our future process updates.

All the best,
six / David Pethes
Polkadot Head Ambassador

1 Like
33

Tottaly agree with Shawn…
So i was HA from Portugal, not applying as HA for new program and i want to continue working on REfi and conservation areas within Polkadot ecosystem as i was back in time with no salary. I dont mind to continue on this way simple, humble and no competition of who owns what and how, if its not justice 4all.
So what happens with me , hi go again to the beguining of the amabassador program or i just continue doing it without Status?

Thanks
hugs
Pedro

1 Like
34

Hi Pedro,

I understand your point of view, at the same time it is the community through OpenGov who made the decision for the changes. While there was a little competition added to the process, it really is not the point and also makes the onboarding decentralized (remember, before it was W3F who did it centrally). Additionally, as the entry barrier was raised, the quality improved as well.

If you are still active contributing to Polkadot, why don’t we talk about an SA nomination (if you don’t want to try going for HA)? I’m open to help find a middle ground with you.

Hope to see you around with more positive vibes!

Best,
six / David Pethes
Polkadot Head Ambassador

1 Like
35

The last part of your statement truely defined the state of the polkadot council, using the story analogy and animals to show the messy state of Polkadot Governance…
well , for me I think we are heading towards a better and reimagined governace system.

36

In a broader sense , we believe that everyone in the current ambassador program was elected and voted by the community , in the other hand , the case with @michiko disputes this facts . I think that the ambassador program should be based on merit rather than some whale manipulation , most of the vote indicates a single or two individuals backing someone up. The program should have maintained some sorts of hierarchical structure similar to the previous program where candidates get promoted based on work done over time .
thanks to @Leemo for his work identifying one of the elected head ambasssdor without a proof of humanity

37

I understand your point and agree with the principal that there should be a level of competence for the role. However, i disagree with the new analogy you have given, particularly with respect to the HA BD focused role as defined in the initial referendum.

Having managed high level sales offices for years I can categorically say that a lot of the highest performing people had serviceable but technically capped knowledge of the nuts and bolts. The same was true the other way around, those fluent in the minutia of the product were often really really bad at relating to the target audience. Of course every now and then you would find the unicorn that did both, but you certainly wouldn’t build a business around that dream.

A country ambassador is dealing with politics, policy forming etc far more than BD. Fair to say, if we were talking about the Polkadot ambassadors working in similar scope then it would require a more technical skill sets. If we want to change the ambassador program then fine but it is unfair to just assume different parameters than those originally outlined in order to question someone suitability.

On AAG some weeks ago Shawn ascertained that one perspective HA’s was unaware of the tipping mechanism and he questioned if they thought they were the right fit for a Head role (they didn’t even really to seem to understand his point.) This level of competency definitely seems too low however the level of technical expertise I am seeing called for by a lot of the more engineering minded people seems way too high to the point of being bloody intimidating. I actually think it would be enough to put off some very competent and valuable people from ever applying to any level of ambassador.

From what i have seen the level of interaction, production and effort put forth so far by the HA’s is showing that both technical and non technical members are shining equally (while others members from both camps are underperforming.)

Like in most tech sales, I would guess a mixed blend of people is the right approach to most effectively onboard new businesses/investment. Some arenas will require those with mostly sales skills and at others times those with mostly tech knowledge will be doing the heavy lifting. The individual with a large coding toolbox is unlikely to schmooze the c-suite of Coinbase at a private dinner and yet the the sales schmoozer is unlikely to demonstrate a bespoke code/onboarding plan to the c-suite once a very formal 4th meeting has been arranged.

There are many great ideas floating around including yours and Shawns, I just think we shouldn’t set this technical bar too high and lose other much needed skill sets.

38

@Murphy I think the primary quality we should be looking for in an Ambassador is a growth mindset.

The problem I have with most people is NOT with the current level of education, but not showing a drive or ability to really educate themselves and level themselves up.

Its super easy to quickly find out if someone has actually:

  • read the content of our wikis / blogs / videos / educational material
  • used our products and tools
  • participated in governance / decentralized coordination
  • engaged with our experts to understand topics more deeply
  • written down their thoughts / knowledge, forcing themselves to think more deeply about how they would explain Polkadot to others

Look at those verbs: “read, used, participated, engaged, written”… the problem is that many people just cannot show to have done any of those verbs before trying to apply to become a “head ambassador”.

Unfortunately I feel the problem might ultimately be the Dunning Kruger effect. Those who immediately apply to be Head Ambassador are often exactly the people who we do not want to be Head Ambassador. Those who think they already understand Polkadot deeply, that they have little to learn about, and that they are actually capable of creating impact in this community… without ever having really done those things in the past.

This is why there is no good solution for an ambassador program (or any other on-chain program) other than a merit based one where people start at the beginning and prove themselves to qualify for higher ranks.

7 Likes
39

I agree with @shawntabrizi that this Ambassador program, at least in its current form, has become overwhelming for most and is in need of desperate clean up.

Fortunately, I think with a few minor tweaks the Ambassador program can (and will) flourish.

For starters, I believe that any candidate applying for an ambassador position should be required to submit a brief five-minute video presentation explaining their qualifications and why they should be selected. This approach allows the community to assess candidates more efficiently, avoiding the need to sift through extensive resumes and written applications. If someone cannot perform this simple request and convince people they understand Polkadot and the role they hoping to fill, then why are we paying them and electing them to represent Polkadot to the masses?

Additionally, I would like to raise a point regarding the expectation that elected officials serve in these roles on a full-time basis. For instance, I am the co-founder of a leading programmatic advertising platform that manages millions in paid ad spend. While I am eager to contribute my expertise and support Polkadot, especially with regards to our community’s marketing and advertising initiatives, I would not be able to commit exclusively to this position.

I believe many other high-caliber candidates might find themselves in a similar situation. It’s worth considering that these types of professionals could offer significant value to Polkadot, even if they are balancing multiple roles, compared to candidates who may have fewer existing commitments (which may be a signal of lack of talent, lousy work ethic, bad personality, etc.)

Finding a balance that accommodates such contributions would likely attract more experienced and diverse candidates, ultimately benefiting the community.

As for the payment structure of Ambassadors moving forward, I’m sure there are other builders and DOT community protectors that would also perform these duties better than currently elected users without the need of being paid a full-time salary. For example, I would happily oversee any marketing/advertising proposals without having to be compensated 6 figures or drop everything else I’m working on to weigh in objectively and provide advice when the community seeks my expertise. I’m not interested in Polkadot for the money, and neither should the people voted to become Ambassadors of Polkadot.

Lastly, because there are so many Ambassadors in the current program’s design, it makes it harder than we all want it to be to track the progress and overall effectiveness of each candidate. To fix this, I believe we should have a “Head Ambassador” role for each business function of Polkadot.

For example, a potentially more effective structure could be to elect people with unrivaled experience in each of the following functions:

1. Dev Lead (keep focused on moving the needle leading to less dev distractions)
2. UI/UX Lead (lots of opportunities to improve user experience once buying $DOT)
3. Paid Advertising Lead (manage online/offline media spend)
4. Community Manager (produce blog posts, email blasts, tutorials etc)
5. Social Media Manager (keep social feeds relevant + exciting)

Certainly open to feedback on this topic; what do you all think?

Cheers,

2 Likes
40

There are many different threads on the Ambassador program. I am posting in this one because I believe this thread to represent the view that the current program is fundamentally flawed, and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

So I don’t really think the current initiatives to salvage the program will be successful:

Below is my updated thinking on how we can start over, building on top of my original proposal for “Ambassador Program 2.0”.

Create Two Programs for Two Needs

The fundamental problem with the Ambassador Program is trying to combine too many needs into one initiative.

The two needs I am hearing about most frequently are:

  1. Bringing legitimacy, title, and rank to members in our community.
  2. Putting money into the hands of high quality ecosystem agents.

So let’s talk about solutions to those needs.

Ambassador Titles

I think my proposal for Ambassador Program 2.0 is still a good solution for this, and what we need.

  • Anyone can be an ambassador.
  • There are no limits to number of ambassadors at any rank.
  • Going through the ranks of the ambassador program is based on merit and outcome.
  • The decision process is handled by the existing governance system via treasury.
  • There is are decent incentives through the program.

If you want to shake someone’s hand and say you are a “Head Ambassador of Polkadot”, then you will be able to justify that title with the on-chain history of things you have done for Polkadot, and feel that you have earned that status and reputation based on merit, not by brown-nosing.

If you want to learn more, review the HackMD document.

Ecosystem Agents Fund

Separate to the ambassador program, I would propose we create an on-chain Ecosystem Agents Fund using the Gov1 council elections (also suggested by @bkchr).

For those unfamiliar, here is a high level look at how the council elections worked:

  • Voting for Councillors · Polkadot Wiki
    • Anyone could submit candidacy to be on the council.
    • Any DOT holder can vote for N candidates, all of which get your equal vote to join the council.
    • Phragmen, the same algorithm we use for Polkadot Staking, then calculates the best candidates based on all votes, and places them in the set.
      • This behaves like a runoff election, where if you vote for someone who doesn’t get elected, your vote will then pass to the next person who you want to vote for which would be elected.
      • It also helps new agents join the group compared to first past the post elections, or more naive election algorithms.

So with this in mind, here is how we can create an Ecosystem Agents Fund:

  • Create a Ecosystem Agents group with M agents.
    • Could be 21 like the current HA program, or more or less.
    • Depends on how much money we want to spent through this program per election period.
    • Could be updated by governance.
  • Elections happen once every month (28 days, configurable too).
  • This group gets its own treasury which is funded / topped up by the main treasury.
  • Those elected get access to spend up to $10,000 USD from the treasury during their election period.
    • Each spend has a required memo field (text) where the Agent describes what the funds are used for.
    • Agents do NOT need to spend all the money, and spending the money is not a default operation.
    • Agents can spend money to any address:
      • To themselves for payment / salary / compensation / reward.
      • To others, as a way of bootstrapping larger initiatives, and rewarding good work in the ecosystem.
  • Because elections are done on-chain, Agents need not appeal to anyone except DOT holders.
  • DOT holders can update their nominations based on the memos and spending history of Agents.
  • DOT holders can update any of the parameters based on the needs of the ecosystem.

Some Additional Ideas

  • Rather than the program running on a monthly cycle, we could do a 2 week cycle at half the amount per 2 weeks to allow for more quick turnaround.
  • We could require anyone applying have a verified identity, so there is some reputational risk. (although this is kind of wishy-washy)
  • Maybe users could apply with a variable monthly salary, so if multiple people apply at less than $10,000, we could hire more people.
  • Agents may be able to “pause” their candidacy, allowing someone else to be elected during times where they are doing other things, but not lose their votes outright when they decide to resume.

Expected Behaviors

Let’s talk about some different personas which would make sense in this program.

The Full Time Employee

There are people who want to work full time for Polkadot as an ecosystem agent. What exactly they do is not super important to the design of this system, just that the community wants to vote to support this person into the Ecosystem Agents Fund.

This person can pay themselves up to $10,000 per month for the work they have done. They are held responsible because each payment includes a memo which should justify the work they have done. If they grift the treasury or don’t show they are doing substantial work, they will quickly be voted out in the next election cycle, and probably hurt their reputation.

The Part-Time Coordinator

There are people whose value to the ecosystem is through coordination. This persona has a lot of good ideas and can act as a mentor, but is too busy with other work to actually execute those ideas.

This person will spend on themselves something like $1,000 per month on coordination efforts, but actually will spend the other $9,000 paying 3 people each $3,000 for doing work. Imagine they hire some web developers for building DApp. Of course, each of these spends will also include a memo, describing the work done by each contractor, but overall this person is making an impact into the ecosystem by getting access directly to some funds to execute with what they think is impactful, and what the DOT holders agree with.

Recognition Agents

Finally, you might have people who are just focused on building and growing the Polkadot community. Putting DOT into the hands of the right people can turn them from strangers to enthusiasts.

I have seen small scale efforts like tipping ambassadors, creating lotteries for governance participants, funding hackathon rewards, doing DOT distribution / giveaways at events, small scale marketing / advertising, etc…

The right person with $10,000 could multiply the impact of that cash, and may not even expect to take a cut themselves.

In summary, I feel that a lot of the problems around the Ambassador Program come from mixing these two different needs.

By separating them, we can create two better programs, with much more clear guidelines.

By creating a merit based organization, we can actually give meaning and substance to titles in our ecosystem. We can encourage high quality, long term agents in our ecosystem.

By adjusting how money is spent:

  • not spent by default
  • required memos per spend
  • small size budgets
  • dynamic, on-chain selection of agents
  • etc…

I think we can reduce gifting, diversify our investments into the ecosystem, and improve the overall impact of spending.

I hope the existing Ambassadors will recognize the philosophical differences from these ideas compared to the original manifesto, and perhaps look to replace the program with these pillars.

If the ambassador program continues to struggle to get off the ground, I would perhaps propose this myself directly to the chain. However, I would like to stay hands off if possible, and instead lead by convincing people of these philosophies so they make these decisions themselves.

19 Likes
41

The best stuff I ever read about the whole HAs shit in months :raised_hands:t3::raised_hands:t3::raised_hands:t3:.

Go for it.

As long as the system is flexible, not tied to whales than can decide who are HAs with one single vote, I’m fully in.

I vote 1M% to see this implemented and tested.

We finally have a path, a vision, rules, processes.
And it’s pretty easy to understand.

It also avoids the need to go through the OpenGov Tracks again and again where we all know this is gamed and bears secret Gov suspicions.

We finally are seeing something being proposed and potentially implemented in the right:

  • We know the rules
  • We know the compensations

And we know it BEFORE people start having their titles. Not after where people just brainstorm for months to get nothing done and not being paid.

The different mechanisms looks a pretty damned good solution.

AYE for this.
Burn the current program down.

1 Like
42

After a week of being involved in the drama, as well as all I have learned in the past few months of being a Head Ambassador as well as weighing issues as a Decentralized Voice, I think the issue is much deeper than just about how the HA team works together.

What is happening is a symptom of a larger issues of fairness, justice, self-governance and identity as a community and DAO in Polkadot.

It’s the result of living in a plutocratic system, where token weight is decision-making weight.

It’s the result of living in a system where good deeds may not be recognized because of the current whims of the system (large token-holders) or “politics.”

It’s the result of living in a system where is not a balance between consequentialism and deontology. On both big and small scales, does the ends justify the means? Or do we reward good behavior, intent, and actions? OpenGov as it is today not set up to answer these questions. These are the messy undefined parts of the social layer above the chain.

How do resources get distributed in a fair way? What happens when one or a few individuals have enough power to sway the vote? And when those resources are depleted via external forces (market) as well as divisive spending, this is a big powder keg.

What happens when ecosystem agents (not just HAs but many others) are devoting significant portions of their work lives to solving the biggest problems in Polkadot today but they are unappreciated, not compensated and overlooked? While others get large sums of money from the treasury? When being good at politics wins out over being good at contributing?

In a system where there is no independent justice system that provides a reinforcement of fairness, then the only thing to for a citizenry that feels aggrieved to do is to institute vigilantism. Sometimes this is needed in society - we see examples all around us in today’s world. But it’s a temporary solution for an eventually productive society - we have to recognize the downside, which is things may go too far or innocent people may get injured along the way.

Perhaps it started before, but I think we can trace the start to the advent of OpenGov, which happened just over one year ago (around mid 2023 I think). This was when a $300M treasury was put in the hands of the “community.” But there are multiple definitions of community.

Is the community tokenholders? Who have a voice based on token weight? Or is the community stakeholders, who may be contributing a lot to the future value and impact of the network but may not be financially rich today?

Is Polkadot meant to protect the world from a potential “future” crisis where individual freedoms are trampled on? Or does it need to have an impact today and solve more “mundane” problems that generate an ROI for today’s corporations and society and lead to current adoption?

Can we as a community have some alignment (in a decentralized way) on how to move forward?

The solution shouldn’t come from any particular group, e.g. elected leaders, self-appointed leaders, technical leaders. We can and should behave better of course. It needs come from the community, because ultimately it needs to be embraced by the community to move to the next step.

Communication is the key that enables us to get to a solution. We need to bring the real questions, concerns and objections to the surface to move forward together. The issues that are driving behavior under the surface need to come to the surface in order for us to take the next step in strengthening ourselves as a DAO.

Community norms/rules/interactions → What do we want to achieve → What is the strategy → LFG

I believe we can upgrade ourselves from this experience. We can do this while maintaining decentralization and resilience.

p.s. Thank you to technical leaders like Shawn, Basti, Nikos and Tien for keeping sense and meritocracy in the picture. We need these voices more.

4 Likes