Today, it’s almost shocking to realize that the initiators of the “removal” proposal still believe this was the right course of action. Personally, I would have handled it differently. If I had been under pressure, I would have brought the team together, explained the situation, and we would have made a collective decision on whether any HAs needed to step down—perhaps even voluntarily. But the key is that we would have fought for our survival as a team - created a plan, together. That’s what I call “leading by example.” It strengthens trust within a group, and trust—call me old-fashioned—is essential to me.
Whether I support the 100-day plan or not is no longer relevant at this point. The real question is: “Do I have enough trust to work together with those who remain?” I tried to rebuild that trust after the unfair proposal from some Head Ambassadors, but when I see deadlines for the Individual Reports being missed by those who initiated it, it’s disheartening. This is not how you build a strong team or regain trust from the community.
As Head Ambassadors, we should lead by example, and we should excel in our roles. Unfortunately, I no longer believe that this is the case….
Thus, it is with deep sadness that I step back from my role as Head Ambassador due to the prevailing lack of trust. I can’t operate in a team where “trust” isn’t at the top of the agenda. My sense of honour outweighs any title or compensation, and to stay true to myself and the community I am resigning my position effective immediately. From now on, I’m simply Mario—committed to doing good for the community, without the need for a title.
I will remain active in the Polkadot ecosystem and re-engage in some initiatives I had put on hold.
Firstly, thank you for everything you have put into the programme to date.
This should be the last time that I need to address false claims around the 100 day plan and other assertions around the work ethic of the wider team. I will keep this short for the sake of the community.
The 100 day plan is a huge undertaking which required the collective to come together and agree on a path forward. This has proven impossible by early September. Until early September, you did not know what a 100 day programme was. I then travelled for 4 weeks, during which time, you actively removed me from meeting chair and rewrote all of mine, and others’, documents that had been created weeks before, rather than focussing on new tasks. In terms of deadlines, people have worked hard, to varying levels, but general diligently and in a still undefined role, where people have other commitments which pay the bills and in the busiest month of travel in the Web3 annual calendar there must be some flex. The screenshot you shared was me letting the community know that we were running a little late - communicating our need for an extension, not reneging on a deliverable but asking for understanding in a highly pressured time. The second screenshot you shared was 4.5hrs before the new deadline, so individual statements missing is perfectly acceptable.
Wishing you the best in your continued work within the ecosystem and any feedback that could help the future programme is always welcomed.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and decision with such transparency. It’s clear how much trust and integrity mean to you, and I respect your decision. It’s never easy to navigate moments like this, especially when the team dynamic doesn’t align well, but your commitment to the community speaks for itself.
You were among the strongest to bring professional vibes to the Program. Kudos for working on (for free!) upgrading the hackerspace structure to a more market ready one.
I am happy to keep working with you in and out of the ecosystem.
With the recent resignation of the head ambassador, it’s clear that the current ambassador program is not fulfilling its intended purpose and may be doing more harm than good. Rather than driving meaningful engagement and growth, it has created an environment of misaligned incentives and inconsistent contributions that do not reflect the high standards of the Polkadot ecosystem. Continuing the program in its present form risks further resource drain and reputational damage, especially when genuine, value-driven contributions are what the community needs. This is an opportune moment to shut down the program, reassess its core goals, and potentially redirect efforts toward initiatives that foster authentic, community-led participation and long-term sustainability for Polkadot.