Summary
I propose introducing a small $50 DOT fee for submitting a Treasury proposal, with the fee being burned regardless of the outcome of the proposal.
This would be separate from the existing proposal deposit, which would remain unchanged and continue to serve its current purpose, including protection against malicious or abusive proposals.
Rationale
Governance is not free.
Every Treasury proposal consumes a collective resource: the time and attention of the community. Contributors need to read the proposal, discuss it, evaluate the requested funding, and ultimately vote on it.
Polkadot does not have a traditional administration with employees who process these requests, but the work still exists. It is performed by contributors and governance participants.
Therefore, submitting a proposal should have a small cost associated with accessing this governance process.
A $50 fee is small enough that it should not prevent legitimate proposals from being submitted, while creating a meaningful incentive to think carefully before submitting or resubmitting a proposal.
Why should the fee be burned?
The fee should be burned rather than paid to the Treasury or another entity.
This means the cost of governance participation is effectively internalized by the network. The DOT are removed from supply, indirectly benefiting all DOT holders rather than creating another recipient of governance funds.
The principle would be:
The proposal deposit protects the network from abuse; the $50 burn fee pays for consuming the governance process.
These are two different functions and should remain separate.
The problem of repeated proposals
One issue we regularly see is proposals being rejected and then submitted again with little or no meaningful change.
There is nothing inherently wrong with resubmitting a rejected proposal. If the proposer has new information, has improved the proposal, or believes the community’s concerns have been addressed, they should absolutely be able to try again.
However, repeatedly submitting essentially the same proposal creates additional work for voters and contributors.
A $50 burn fee introduces a small amount of skin in the game:
If you believe your proposal deserves another round of community attention, you should be willing to spend $50 to submit it again.
This does not prevent anyone from participating. It simply adds a small friction against low-effort or repetitive submissions.
Why $50?
The amount should be large enough to discourage spam and thoughtless resubmissions, but small enough that it does not become a significant barrier for legitimate contributors.
$50 is intentionally a relatively small amount compared with the typical size of Treasury requests.
The exact amount could of course be discussed by the community and adjusted over time if experience shows that a different amount would work better.
Important distinction from the existing deposit
I am not proposing to replace or modify the existing proposal deposit.
The existing deposit should remain in place.
The two mechanisms would have different purposes:
| Mechanism | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Existing deposit | Accountability and protection against malicious/abusive proposals |
| $50 burn fee | Cost of accessing and consuming the governance process |
If a proposal is malicious and the community uses kill, the existing mechanisms and deposit remain relevant.
The $50 fee, on the other hand, is simply the cost of submitting the proposal and is burned regardless of whether the proposal is approved, rejected, or killed.
Conclusion
Polkadot’s governance process is a scarce community resource.
A small burn fee would acknowledge that submitting a proposal has a real cost for the network, while creating a modest incentive for proposers to submit higher-quality proposals and avoid unnecessary repetition.
I believe $50 is low enough to preserve open participation while high enough to introduce meaningful skin in the game.
I would be interested in hearing the community’s opinion on:
- Whether Treasury proposals should have a small burn fee.
- Whether $50 is an appropriate amount.
- Whether the fee should apply to every Treasury proposal, including resubmissions.
- Whether there are technical or governance considerations I have overlooked.
The goal is not to make governance harder to access, but to make the cost of consuming the governance process more explicit and encourage higher-quality participation.