Just sharing some ideas, not trying to change the all Will. Decentralization of thoughts here . I believe in co creation. .
1 Like
This has been tried out on Cardano with varying results. They liked to use this tool: https://dework.xyz/
I feel itâs necessary to organize work as a community but itâs missing the strategy step in between. Anyone can create a wishlist of tasks but if itâs not based on strategic choice (what to focus on, why, and what NOT to do) then itâs just a random assortment of tasks.
I think @bkchr mentioned it already months ago that we need to make available work visible. Thatâs what @alice_und_bob & Co are preparing for as they are creating new structures to support strategic alignment and budgeting.
And, yes @mister_cole, streamlining bounties is a good first step to get this going.
2 Likes
Glancing at the draft manifesto (Project Phoenix: Manifesto - Google Docs) I see that the idea of having more ranks has been brought back. This was already discussed a year ago to encourage progression through the ranks.
I give the same feedback now as I did then: The ranks could be named in a way that shows the progression and makes each rank distinct. However, we need to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can or even wants to advance to the highest rank, but they should still be able to find their place and be comfortable in a role most suitable to them. Something like this (just an example):
0 â Polkadot Candidate
1 â Polkadot Enthusiast
2 â Polkadot Advocate
3 â Polkadot Champion
4 â Polkadot Mentor
5 â Polkadot Senior Ambassador
6 â Polkadot Lead Ambassador
7 â Polkadot Head Ambassador
2 Likes
Hi everyone!
Overall, I like the âProject Phoenix.â It seems like an ambassador collective that I would be happy to participate in! The Phragmen election is a particularly appealing solution.
What I like about it:
- Scalable
- Not just individuals, but teams/DAOs can also apply for funding.
- Thereâs no all-powerful figure who can control the program (e.g., secretary or program manager).
Questions that have come to my mind:
- In the Phoenix model, if I understand correctly, ANYONE with 1 DOT can submit a proposal to the phragmen election to get funds from the ambassador treasury. Now, if there are no prerequisites for submitting a proposal to the ambassador collectiveâs Phragmen system, then essentially anyone can access the ambassador treasury if itâs voted for by DOT holders.
Since the Phragmen election doesnât support Nay votesâonly adding support to a given proposalâI feel that proposals can pass more easily in this system than in the traditional OpenGov system. My question is: do I see this correctly, or am I missing something? And if Iâm right, wouldnât the Ambassador Treasury/Phragmen election become a breeding ground for proposals that have already failed in OpenGov and are trying again, exploiting the ambassador treasury? Moreover, I suspect that proposals unrelated to the ambassador program might also be submitted in the Phragmen election (e.g., development proposals, etc.).
I have two ideas that could provide a solution to this while keeping the Phragmen election:
Solution A: In addition to the DOT Support Threshold, introduce another threshold: the Ambassador Support Threshold. This value would be dynamically calculated based on the number and rank of ambassadors voting on a particular proposal.
- Rationale: Ambassadors collectively could block proposals unrelated to the ambassador program, even if the DOT support for the proposal exists.
- Advantage: The ambassador collective can defend itself against âspamâ proposals from the ambassador programâs perspective.
- Disadvantage: Every referendum would require voting participation from the ambassadors as well (which seems achievable).
Solution B: Simply restrict the ability to submit proposals to those ranked III or higher in the ambassador hierarchy. In other words, only rank III and above can participate in the Phragmen election. Before that, ambassadors would need to prove their expertise, dedication, and loyalty. Although rank I and rank II ambassadors wouldnât be able to submit proposals yet, their work would still be incentivized because rank III and higher ambassadors could submit proposals for them in the Phragmen election.
Advantage: Proposals unrelated to the ambassador program wonât be submitted.
Disadvantage: Financially discriminatory towards rank I and II, but other ambassador members could help if they have done commendable work.
Thank you fro the answers! Keep up the good work! 
1 Like
Evening All,
Please see the update rolling doc for our new timeline: [ROLLING DOC] Project Phoenix: Key Updates - Google Docs.
We are taking everyoneâs input into consideration during this iterative process and we want to get it right; we think the new timeline reflects this and will be working diligently to deliver on the various milestones.
Please help us by keeping feedback as helpful as it has been so far in this forum and by joining us on our X spaces, currently scheduled for tomorrow @ 1100-1200 UTC, Wednesday 23 October [Western Hemisphere timing] and Thursday 24 October [Eastern Hemisphere timing]. We have also been on AAG (lucky Jay!) for the last 3 weeks and will continue to attend throughout this process. To see AAGs and all of our lively calls, look here: Project Calls - Google Drive. Thatâs Friday night movie night sorted!
3 Likes
@Max you mentioned in AAG that youâre not sure if you like the fact that the funding and rank are separated in the proposed model.
Would a Rank-weighted PhragmĂ©n solve the conundrum for you? In that scenario, we would run the elections normally: each voter could choose which candidates they approve for funding each cycle, and then, before calculating the results, the algorithm would assign weight for each vote based on the voterâs rank. Therefore, rank 0 would render the individualâs votes useless, whereas rank 5 would give 5x voting power.
Just a suggestionâŠ
Hey Tomi!
The phragmen system is exactly what we are working with for one method of funding - great minds 
1 Like
Um, I know⊠thatâs why I commentedâŠ
Point being: there are many types of PhragmĂ©n. I hope you consider a rank-weighted model⊠Iâm not an expert here, though.
Maybe @bill_w3f @jonas @bkchr @alice_und_bob and @shawntabrizi can poke holes into that suggestion. Is it wise to give more voting power to higher-ranked people? Should they be able to vote for themselves when allocating funding to a set of people?
2 Likes
We have been working closely with Shawn and Alice&Bob is part of the team driving the manifesto and supporting financial framework.
There will be more to share on what we have been looking at next week after we have shared the first draft of the manifesto on Monday.
p.s. we have an X space with Leemo @ 1100 UTC if anyone would like to join: x.com.
3 Likes
In the current concept outlined by Don Diego Sanchez, there is a Phragmen approach where the system automatically allocates funds of 10K - 10K (or smaller amounts) on a monthly basis to those 20 entity (person or group/DAOs) who are above the Support Threshold. The support is measured in DOT.
Meanwhile, in the ambassador program, there would be multiple ambassador ranks, but those are just ranks that they can climb without any monetary benefits. This means that in the rank-based ambassador program, progression does not happen due to financial incentives, but ambassadors can move up the ranks. This could be beneficial for them in terms of building their reputation.
So, if I understand correctly, this means that in the current concept, the ambassadors cannot influence the fund allocation because the support is not calculated from their collective votes but from the support of DOT holders. See the screenshot from Don Diego Sanchezâ presentation: the fund allocation and the rank based ambassadors are two separated part of the program.
What you mention could be an interesting approach, where the support for the fund allocation votes does not come from DOT holders, but instead, it is calculated from the collective voting of all the ambassadors. This could have both advantages and disadvantages, which are worth considering.
1 Like
Hi, spending some time reading everything on my Sunday. There are still individual reports missing, wonât they be done anymore?
1 Like
Hey Lily,
Yes they will be, we just got caught up this week with looking forward at the new programme design.
I have reminded Rish and Leemo and they will share them tomorrow.
Cheers!
3 Likes
Thanks Vikk.
We actually discussed a version of this on the X space on Friday, with JimmyT bringing up the same idea.
It is something that we have discussed briefly, but it keeps being raised by different people so it is definitely being considered and will be presented as part of the funding mechanism, which we will share with the community on Friday 25 October. We have 2 more X spaces between now and then and are still using this space for all async conversations, so input to either the manifesto (will be shared tomorrow EOD, Monday 21 October) or the funding mechanism - keep it coming!
2 Likes
Reminder to check out the timeline for Project Phoenix delivery. A busy couple of weeks ahead for us all 
3 Likes
Input from Jimmy Tudeski - 19 October 2024
Such idea just came to my mind wrt to ecosystem integrity and development
Maybe we should consider the following when the Polkadot Ambassador program is finally here?
Any proposing team should onboard at least one Polkadot ambassador to join them. This way the ambassadors become sort of overwatch of the proposal development, and can be the contact point for the community to refer the milestones and project development.
3 Likes
Evening All,
Apologies for the slight tardiness in the delivery of the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto DRAFT v.I
A reminder that we will be hosting two X spaces this week and will be monitoring the forum for input.
Wednesday 23 Oct @ 1600 UTC
Thursday 24 Oct @ 0800 UTC
Please feel free to reach out directly as well.
Cheers!
Lucy, DonDiego, Lorena, Abdulbee, Ezio, Leemo, Max, Rish, Tommi, William
5 Likes
A summary of the questions that we have received and will be discussing in tomorrowâs X space!
Project Phoenix: Manifesto - Community Suggestions
1 Like
Evening All - sure everyone is happy to hear from us on another Friday night!
Project Phoenix: Manifesto v.2 Draft is now ready for consumption here.
Looking forward to seeing comments here, directly in the doc and at our live X spaces on Monday 26th and Tuesday 27th October.
Happy weekend!
2 Likes
The suggested PhragmĂ©n election where everyone is given 10K regardless of their needs doesnât make sense to me. I get it that it sounds cool to hand out money for community members to do with it whatever they please but, honestly, it just introduces a new way to game the system by asking your friends to vote for you so you can then send them money as a reward.
Alternative solution:
- Say the spend period has 50,000 USD up for grabs.
- Proposers define how much they each need (up to 10K).
- Members of the Ambassador Fellowship vote on which proposals they approve.
- Based on the rank-weighted PhragmĂ©n vote, the most approved proposals, get funded in orderâŠ
- âŠuntil thereâs so little left that it is not enough to fund any of the remaining proposals.
- The remaining funds carry over to the next spend period.
@DonDiegoSanchez @Lucy @alice_und_bob @Leemo @shawntabrizi @Felix @jonas @bill_w3f and whoever else cares: poke holes in that, please. Thatâs exactly how Project Catalyst funding works.
Example of how higher voted proposals might not get funded if their budget is too high:
Having the amount that individuals receive be variable, up to 10k, makes sense to me.
Having control of selection of this by ambassadors versus all DOT holders seems MUCH more vulnerable to:
In general, it feels to me as a principle, spending of Treasury funds should be managed by the DOT holders, as they are the ones directly impacted by the financial impact (positive or negative) of the spending.
One thing which I donât think you are aware of is the power balancing factors of the Phragmen system.
Because Phragmen attempts to keep the backing stake âevenâ across all the selected candidates, you donât really have that much control over exactly how your stake is used. Also, unlike proposals in governance, you do not get to put all your stake behind every single candidate you want. Your total balance is the total amount of voting power you have, which must be split for all your nominations.
In this case, some large whale might have 1 friend, and could perhaps get that 1 friend into the set pretty easy by selecting ONLY that one person. But if they vote for 10 people, then their relative voting power for each of them is reduced (assuming all of them get in the set). There would be a maximum number of nominations allowed. Could be 16 to match our staking system.
Not sure if I explained that the best, but ultimately, Phragmen helps take into account and consolidate the votes of many small voters, which should give a more balanced output from such a system.
It would not be crazy to implement some kind of governance based slashing system, where if a candidate get in the set, and spends maliciously, we could have varying levels of punishment:
- Kick the candidate from the set
- Ban the address from applying again
- Slash the nominators (with some gov controlled percentage)
3 Likes