Of the elected 21, we are now 18 following the removal of Michiko and resignation of six and MarioS. Today, those of us that remain, present a status update on our journey to fundamentally reform the Ambassador Programme: Project Phoenix.
14* currently elected Ambassadors are on board to fundamentally reform the programme:
Abdulbee
Albert
Cris (SEA collective)
DonDiego
Ezio
Irina
Leemo
Lorena
Lucy
MarioA
Max
Rish
Tommi
William
*Angie has stepping back from the programme to focus on DOT.Play, but is supporting reform in the wings and will continue to offer valuable feedback and suggestions as we iterate.
Our plan is to present a complete reform package by EOD Wednesday 16 October. We have chosen this date as this is when ref. 1197 will pass and remove all Ambassadors from the current programme. We are working towards this date as it sets a clear goal, but our work is to create a new root referendum reflective of the whole community (for reference, below are the current active proposals). This new root ref will refine the requirements for applications to the programme, which will be open to all, and the community will vote for its members. No-one will be transferred from their position in the current programme, they will need to reapply. Everyone working on this project is in agreement on this and are working to improve the programme regardless of their personal outcome.
We have constituted 5 working groups that will flesh out the details of our Project Phoenix: 100 day plan. Each group has one lead and one co-lead to ensure that we deliver by our agreed timeline. The working groups are:
Onboarding & Training (inc. offboarding & demotion)
Community Growth & Education (inc. meet ups)
Business Development
Investor Relations
DevRel & Customer Success
All communications are shared between all 18 currently elected Ambassadors to give everyone an opportunity to participate at any point.
We invite you to participate in our X spaces on Friday 11 and Tuesday 15 October, led by Tommi and Leemo.
We will present our intermediate results at AAG on Thursday 10 and Monday 14 October, led by DonDiego and Lucy.
This document will provide you with everything you need to join us for the next week, as we work together to bring you a programme the represents the heart of the community by being:
Dynamic: allows for fast feedback and iteration Inclusive: open to anyone to participate Resilient: adapts to challenges and remains effective Equitable: ensures fairness in the selection process Clear: places outcomes and transparency at the forefront Trustless: relies on on-chain mechanisms for transparency and scalability
Feedback encouraged! If you can please leave in this forum thread to assist us in tracking the evolution of the conversation, let us easily reference questions and allow us a way to more readily accumulate your inputs. If you do post comments elsewhere then copying the text here and referencing the source would be also greatly appreciated.
For ease - and to hopefully make this post your north star - you can find links to previous forum posts related to the adaptation to the programme below (most recent first):
The legacy of this entity is so heavy, full of sorrow and despair. Who would want to join it later? Probably not me. Initial goal of the program was to unite fans under the flag of Polkadot, stimulate proactive members to spread the word and onboard developers, businesses and users.
Now, only things left are seats, titles, and treasury embezzlement - boring…
People usually join organizations for more energy and fun, but this one doesn’t offer that.
Business Development can mean a lot of things. I’d think Head Ambassadors and the Ambassador program in general would be well positioned to do lead gen. I’d have reservations if the Ambassador Program was trying to run a full sales cycle. So where my mind goes is how can we better clarify the handover point from lead gen to the various entities in Polkadot who can manage the rest of the sales cycle including plugging projects into the right delivery/implementation services providers etc.
Paid ambassador programs are not commonly implemented by most companies, and for good reason, even in industries where brand visibility is a key driver of success. For example, companies like Red Bull only use “student marketeers,” who are paid hourly to attend local events and promote the brand. However, this is a tactical initiative targeting a specific audience in a localized manner. This type of program makes sense in consumer-focused industries where brand presence and engagement translate directly into sales, but that’s not easily replicable for a technology-driven, decentralized community like Polkadot.
So, is an ambassador program really necessary for Polkadot, and is it the best use of community funds and focus? Most likely not. The nature of the Polkadot ecosystem is to grow through technical contributions, meaningful community discussions, and building a strong developer base. Investing in programs that might prioritize quantity (i.e., number of new ambassadors or sign-ups) over quality (i.e., actual builders and contributors) could divert resources from areas that need them more.
Potential Issues: Limited Value and Risks
Not only might a paid ambassador program fail to move the needle, but it could also introduce more challenges than benefits if not managed correctly. Some potential issues include:
Misaligned Incentives: Paying people to promote Polkadot might attract individuals more interested in earning a paycheck rather than genuinely contributing to the ecosystem. This could dilute the community’s ethos and lead to a wave of low-quality content or half-hearted engagement.
Short-Term Impact: While a paid ambassador program might result in a temporary spike in awareness or activity, this impact is often fleeting. The focus should be on long-term, sustainable growth, which is better achieved through building strong partnerships, developer relations, and community-led initiatives.
Potential for Negative Perception: Implementing a poorly structured or overly commercial ambassador program could damage Polkadot’s reputation in the broader crypto community. This could lead to backlash or a perception that Polkadot is “paying” for engagement instead of fostering organic growth.
Alternative Strategies for Driving Real Impact
Instead of allocating funds toward paid ambassador initiatives, I’d propose focusing on initiatives that align more closely with the core principles of Polkadot, such as:
Developer and Builder Incentives: Creating grants or bounties to support developers and technical contributors who can deliver real value to the ecosystem.
Educational Programs: Investing in educational content, workshops, and hackathons to bring more technical talent into the community.
Community-Led Proposals: Encouraging more grassroots efforts and providing support for existing community members to lead their own initiatives.
By prioritizing these areas, we can ensure that our resources are directed toward sustainable growth and the long-term success of the Polkadot ecosystem.
Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on this!
Evaluation metrics for ambassadors should be made explicit, as in how many successful deals, events, confirmed partnerships on each working group community is the goal for the current working groups:
This is important to tell if the ambassador program is effective or not. Without metrics and proposed goals evaluation becomes nearly impossible.
If we get 1 of item 4 within a year with 18 head ambassadors then this will only become evident and part of the conversation in retrospect. Considering that these are the 5 areas that this program chose to pursue, setting concrete goals and numbers thereof should also become the norm for this ambassador program.
Yes, but being extremely careful. Educational content must be of the highest quality possible, same for workshops. Hackathons must be very well tailored and monitored because the prize incentives and specially the prize distributors can easily reverse the intended outcome and attract toxic/absurd “talent” to game the numbers and get an apparently “good” PR photo album (a bit like, with all the differences in orders of magnitude, what happened with the NINJA loans in the past real estate market crash where the incentives paved the way to an obvious disaster).
Today’s call marked a significant change in the direction of the programme. There is still a lot to work on, the team is still digesting, but it feels like a breakthrough moment.
New concept:
NO flat salaries
Project-based funding: Ambassadors can apply to get specific initiatives within the program funded, e.g. “6 months of Ambassador Academy”
Listen to us discussing the progress which has led us to this point and what is coming up next:
I have a really good feeling about the path this New program is taking, and I look forward to getting the community’s feedback on it.
We’ve basically compiled everyone’s feedback to create something completely new that could empower agents and communities in a resilient, open and fair system, much more in line with Polkadot’s core values.
I believe it will be very efficient and flexible without giving up decentralization, it will also be future-proof and completely free of any bureaucratic processes.
It will also be a starting point for a whole New funding system for the ecosystem, not just for the Ambassador program.
No more Hunger Games, but the largest grassroots community of ambassadors the world has ever seen, supporting the rise of the DAO as a whole.
I am rather sceptical of Shawn’s vision of divorcing the ambassador program from funding. My mainly concern is that it will divert resources away from what were hitherto considered ambassador activities. Some examples Shawn gave on the call:
Shawn applying for one 10k slot to then give 5x2k to his junior devs
Someone proposing to spend 10k per month in local newspaper ads for Polkadot in Los Angeles
Jay applying for 10k per month to fund admin work or editors at the Kusamarian
Bounty curators (e.g. marketing bounty) getting paid 10k per month for curation work
Anyone building literally anything Polkadot to get paid 10k for monthly development work
Now, while I’m not saying the above activities are not worth funding, this model will undoubtedly increase competition. Shawn even said on the call that maybe only 3 of the 21 funding slots may end up being used for ambassadors. And while this was obviously just a random number being thrown out, it may not be too far off.
From my perspective, should this optimistic funding program get implemented despite these concearns, I will apply with the IR initiative for one of these tracks. I am confident it will get approved, as the value of such program will be pretty obvious.
Nonetheless I’m against forcing the the ambassador program to rely on on the optimistic funding program for its resources. For me 487 was about saying hey, we are willing to allocate a certain amount of resources for “ambassador activities”. What exactly these activities are, has now been described through our working groups. Optimistic funding can and should still be implemented, but it’s a separate discussion from this one. Going back to letting the “ambassador activities” compete once again with literally everything else in Polkadot that wants to get funded, is a step in the wrong direction.
I’m really confused about all this ambassador stuff. When it comes to investment, I understand that there may be expenses from failed attempts. The main issue isn’t whether to fund these upfront or after the fact, but rather whether the community finds the endeavor worthwhile.
In such a specific area as sales, it seems that you either have the connections and the buyers of the expected rewards, or you don’t. Since there’s no research or development risk involved, it makes sense to be paid a commission based on what you actually sell; closed deals or whatever irrevocable proof of it.
@alice_und_bob mentioned in the Friday’s 2-hour call something about different types of roles. This mix-up is that some think of Ambassadors as Admins/Secretaries, some as Leaders/Coordinators, some as Contributors and some as Representatives. I think only the Coordinators and Secretaries should be salaried roles, whereas everything else can be incentivized via other means.
Can share some ideias too, if we can have a platform (guithub discord for instance), map all the work (tasks) we need to do in different areas (marketing, BD,gaming, public goods, defi, environmental, etc) all the areas that polkadot work with and his difference from the “other’s”, then choose moderators to each area.
Tasks :
Each task will have a particular value depends of the difficulty and expertise.
Moderators design the tasks need to accomplish the best for polkadot in each area.
Each task can have a time of execution ( one day to one week or even months)
Moderator follow up with each task with each member ( helping or giving tips)
In the end of the task one moderator will retifiy the task click ay or nay and the value of that particular task is automatic transfered to the person that did it.
Just some thought’s and shares to the community .
Evening All,
Please find the updated rolling doc with today’s call: [ROLLING DOC] Project Phoenix: Key Updates - Google Docs
We are concentrating on the manifesto this week and will have v1 prepared for AAG on Thursday.
Tomorrow we have an X space at 1600 UTC. Tommi will be hosting and those of us working on the manifesto will also be there to answer any questions!
Cheers,
