The State of Polkadot's Global Events Bounty: An Analysis

[Kratist0s]

Hi @zoemc @ILoveCripto

I like where this is going but I would like to bring to your attention that Polkadot Ambassadors are not the only collective within the Polkadot Network.

With due respect to the program but why are Polkadot Ambassadors getting preferencial and exclusive right to be sub curators in exclusion of other ACTIVE collectives existing in the Polkadot Network?
Eg ChaosDAO, Kusama Society

In the spirit of ensuring community inclusion and prevent collective bias I would like to propose to open it up to other recognized and active collectives.

Edited the comment proposing ChaosDAO to be included as they will have to be consulted and vote internally if they’d like to join first

[mark.ember.ryan]

Hi everybody. I’m hopping in here to thank y’all for your input and concern, your helpful suggestions and participation in this process. While it may seem challenging at times, I’d like to remind y’all that Zoe and I are here doing this for you and for the community, and that while - yes, some time has passed quickly with seemingly little results in the last 2 months - that also this program is still extremely new (not even yet a year old) and took almost 8 months to properly establish in the first place. At the moment we are operating at 2/3 staff and working hard to rebuild the processing capacity of the Bounty Curator team. Thank you for bearing with us as we do this and please feel free to refer to the new Bounty Curators’ proposal and discussion here; Polkadot Events Bounty Curator Candidacy V2 | Polkassembly !

[ILoveCripto]

Hey @Kratist0s ,

Yes, I completely agree with what you’re proposing. In the end, curators should be the most qualified individuals for the task, regardless of whether they are ambassadors, members of parachains, ecosystem DAOs, or any other collective that comes to mind.

In my opinion, the role of sub-curator should not exist. If we need more curators, they should be added, but not as sub-curators. The curation process requires constant monitoring, so it’s advisable for the person who initiates the process to see it through. That way, we can have better control over the event.

We must understand that any event involves thousands of dollars, and losing 1 or 2 thousand dollars is not very difficult.

As for myself, I have experience in conducting audits. I run an event management company, and I have also served as a curator for the Spanish bounty, where we managed to recover $2000 from a Chilean event where the view party organizer tried to keep that money. Thanks to a thorough investigation, we were able to recover the funds, which are now in Kusama’s treasury.

Regarding the idea of allocating specific funds by region or area, I don’t agree with it. What I do believe is important is whether the organizer is doing things correctly or not. To me, that is the most crucial point - rewarding or not rewarding them based on their performance. Proper curation is the most important thing.

Best regards,

[Kratist0s]

Thanks for taking the time to answer! @ILoveCripto

Good points you shared.

I see the discussion has now been posted on Polkassembly. Looks like a good start and hope events management will get better.

[Gaius_sama]

Hello @zoemc,

I’ve looked at your proposal, but I’m still puzzled by two points that I’d like you to develop:

1. The proposal introduces 3 new curators and 11 sub-curators, but as far as reward systems are concerned, it is only explained that the main curators will receive rewards for their work, but what about the sub-curators reward system? Aren’t they rewarded for the help and assistance they provide to the main curators in carrying out their duties?

2. If I’m not mistaken, Proposal #1931: Polkadot Events Bounty Curator Candidacy V2 introduce the vote for the addition of 3 new curators to the bounty and multi-sig structure but also the election of these new curators (Chris, WebZero and Parity), it should be two different votes in my opinion. One for structure and one with an election process.

I would support your proposal to restructure the Global Events Bounty and add more curators, but I’m not satisfied with the candidates as they are too Europe-centric to take into account the other regions of the world where Polkadot has a large presence (Asia, America, Africa, etc.).
I don’t doubt their qualifications and motivation to contribute to this bonus, but I find it very limited.

Another option might be to extend the number of curators to 10, with 3 seats for each major region of the world and one seat for parity, with a threshold of 6/10.

I look forward to a constructive discussion for the sake of the bounty.

[zoemc]

hey @Gaius_sama

let me help you clarify your open questions:

1. Sub-curators will be rewarded for their work. However, we have not fully laid out the reward structure at the time of this proposal. The implementation of sub-curators as well as the payment structure does not require vote from the community. We have mainly listed the new sub-curators to show the process and expansion of the current restructure.

2. The current proposal proposes new curator candidates. If the initial proposal would have been set-up with a proxy, there would have not been any public vote or proposal for the community and the current curators could have chosen new curators and just inform the community. That said, there is no hard reason to separate the curator candidacy into two proposals.

3. We are very confident that the new multisig with 5 curators and a treshold of 3/5 can ensure decentralization and efficiency at the same time! If we would expand the curator seats within the multisig, we would 1) slow down the whole proposal process 2) slow down on-chain signing as more accounts would need to sign a child bounty.

4. As of today, we need to start implementing the most critical points which are 1) working on expanding the multisig and 2) adding more individuals to the bounty review process.

5. Regarding your concern of the physical location of curators: These curators are suggested since they are strategic minds which is beneficial to the bounty because these people will put event submissions into perspective of the overall Polkadot ecosystem and will discuss funding and execution within an overall context of the Polkadot branding.
   Sub-curators who will be chosen from any global area will support in 1) reviewing proposals more quickly and 2) offer advice and consultations where needed.

[zoemc]

Hey @Kratist0s

did you have time to read the official proposal in detail?

We tried to describe the process there:

As there are many things to improve, we need to start implementing the most critical points which are 1) working on expanding the multisig and 2) adding more individuals to the bounty review process.

Implementing sub-curators will be a whole new process within the events bounty and therefore, we prefer to roll-out the changes in several phases.
Polkadot Ambassadors have a proven record of event organization and are known by bounty curators to start testing this new process.

We are excited to roll-out the sub-curator role to the wider Polkadot and Kusama community at a later stage (I could imagine to start roll-out phase 2 within 3 to 6 months after phase one).

Since the proposal is public on Polkassembly, I kindly ask you to comment there if further questions arise

[Kratist0s]

Hi

Thanks and yes someone else also brought this part to my attention.

Good to know that this is just for initial phase and eventually it will be open for the community.

[rich]

I know this might sound like a crazy suggestion, but perhaps there could be a wholesale reassessment of events spending?

Rn it just seems to be a pot of funds that is expected to be spent, and then everything flows from there.

You’re just arguing over who gets the money and how, rather than a more critical analysis of what is imo demonstrably wasteful spending that is poorly suited to a bear market and a coretime centric model.

How many millions have been spent to date?

What has been achieved?

What has the direct impact been on the network?

What are the plans for the future regarding a move to coretime where demand will be a leading indicator of progress?

[rich]

Even ignoring the questionable effectiveness of spending you should be aware that running Polkadot funded and marketed events, meet-ups, hackathons and promotions in the UK is now illegal if you don’t register with the FCA.

If you aren’t registered and continue to promote crypto assets - you can be fined or in extreme cases go to prison.

…by placing such a wide range of cryptoassets under the existing financial promotion regime, described more particularly below, the FCA will likely capture a much broader range of communications than investment prospectuses, tube and radio advertisements and pitch decks. For example, it is common practice in the cryptocurrency industry to sponsor in-person events like meetups and hackathons, and to have employees and founders present at conferences or join podcasts as guests.

Anyone engaging in seemingly innocuous and hitherto entirely normal cryptocurrency promotion activities in the course of business, where these communications might be seen by a U.K. consumer, will, going forward, need to exercise extreme caution and ensure that they and their organization adheres to the new rules strictly.

Marketing Cryptoassets to Consumers in the UK

I would study the EU MiCA regulations and others coming into force around the world and eliminate spending where promoting crypto-assets is now impossible without onerous and costly administration.

[lolmcshizz]

Community notes: It is not now illegal to hold crypto events in the UK.

[rich]

thanks ben - I wasn’t suggesting people who meet up for a beer wearing Polkadot t shirts will automatically go to jail.

Moving forward it is effectively illegal to promote crypto-assets without registering with the FCA…

Since the topic of this thread is related to events bounty and large scale spending it seems relevant to mention.

Given the legal status of the DAOs per Legal status of Kusama / Polkadot DAOs that means individual organisers take on potential liabilities.

obviously how people choose to interpret these rules is entirely up to them.

If nothing else it is yet another reason to reassess and re-evaluate spending per my previous comment which is the bigger point.

[lolmcshizz]

Given Polkadot’s stance as “software, not a security” - all of the marketing guidelines that these events follow as a result (such as not advertising a token, not encouraging to buy, etc) fall in line with this new guidance.

If anything this brings some clarity around what is and isn’t acceptable regarding event “marketing” - it isn’t anything close to making it illegal as you state in your OP ser

[rich]

That’s a fair critique, things always exist on a spectrum, the primary point per my original comment about effectiveness is to move thinking away from general awareness and towards concentrated impact - this regulation stuff is just another signal as to the direction of travel we are inevitably on whether people recognise it or not.

Once we move definitively into a coretime world, with actual revenues dictating performance/progress a lot of existing strategies will become more obviously redundant.

Sometimes you need a carrot, sometimes you need a stick to make these points.

[kokolucas]

Hi @zoemc ,

I appreciate all the changes in the proposal. From 3 curators to 5 and an additional 11 sub-curators is indeed very helpful. However, I wanted to point out a few key points we need to discuss still:

1. I greatly agree to @djhatrang’s point about adding people from Asia in the curator and sub-curator role. Better if we have sub-curators per region to review all proposals. This will ensure that the curators not only streamline proposals but also check validity of receipts submitted. This will also simplify the process as we can already hear back from them if our proposal is approved or not.

2. While this change is of high importance, I like to mention again from my previous post, When can we expect this change? We hope you’ll be transparent with the timeline especially with the curator and sub-curator roles. When will the community vote on these roles?

3. We wanted to expedite these changes but there are still pending events that have not been refunded yet. Those events were pre-funded from our own pockets and submitted months ago. We need to have a timeframe on when we can hear back from the curators.

I hope to hear back from you regarding these.

[rhee]

Few Questions:

1. From the proposed curator group, I see @zoemc 's face in the team introduction section from WebZero’s website. What is the rationale behind adding your co-founded company as another curator, instead of setting it as a sub-curator for the newly proposed Event Bount_v2?

2. As announced from Parity twitter account, Polkadot needs more decentralization and more ecosystem players to remove all the bottlenecks, also zeroing in on delivering the best Developer Experience for the builders.
   (1) How this would create impact on your v2?
   (2) How would you like to contribute on this decentralization initiative, while v2 seems to be full of either from Parity OR from the closest friends of yours?
   (3) Any diversity or breakdowns on this current structure of the event bounty should be restructured (re: on @djhatrang’s idea above)?

3. Can anyone else from the event bounty curator group, other than @zoemc, (that would be @mark.ember.ryan), can show the community: Where can the community find the quarterly report, which is mentioned in the very last part of your proposal_v1? For now I can only find one report from here. And does the “report” really only include the maximum DOT budget spent during the last three months?

[mark.ember.ryan]

Reports and roundups can be found on Bounty 17’s Polkassembly page, here; https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/bounty/17

[XyloDrone]

Hi all, as someone who will be on the WebZero entity multisig I’d like to share some thoughts on the above posts. I think having a discourse about any concerning issues is useful so that any project or venture can improve. On that note, I would kindly ask you to aggregate your comments and post them on the dedicated Polkassembly proposal for higher levels of transparency amongst the community.

@ILoveCripto

We can all agree that the bounty process has been slow, WebZero has experienced this as well, however, every time it did occur we did our best to source the funding elsewhere and front the payments. We’ve just accepted that this would be the case and prepared for it. One of the ways to tackle the problem is to give interest on the payment that has been provided by a third party. Because of this reason, as mentioned, the new bounty proposal has been set up. In fact, it has been in discussions for 2 months but processes are slow when it involves multiple entities and getting them on the same page, especially if all of these folks work in different timezones and were setting up multiple events within a short time span. Bear in mind that Korea Blockchain Week, Messari, Token 2049, Berlin Blockchain Week and Sub0 were all back to back.

Additionally, Parity has decentralised in the meantime, which made us voted on whether they should be on the bounty to begin with, which delayed the process again, however we think ChaosDAO is a great substitute and that it was worth the wait to come to such a curator set.

That being said, it is self explanatory why more entities on the multisig would actually decrease efficiency, hence why I disagree with your comment that sub-curators should not exist. They most certainly should, as managing a multisig can be a very tedious process.

In regards to the comment/screenshot in your image being “nonsense” ; in some events we have taken rollups and branding from Parity to save costs. So without broader context this is difficult to asses. I would also like to add that I’ve personally done all of the designs for WebZero events and in none of them were the costs for designs this high(bearing in mind that I have designed entire booths and had many backs and forths with teams and conference organisers). I’m also a graphic and UX/UI designer based in London with a bachelors degree and 6 years of professional experience. IMO the cost from the screenshot is unjustifiable.

You may have assumed that 3 curators initially would not have been enough, however, this is a theory and they can only be proven through trial and error. There is no manual for a bounty of this type, it is a pioneering initiative and bare in mind that without the existing curators attempts this bounty would have not existed in the first place.

We all share the same frustrations but I’d kindly ask you to empathise with the curators. We have all done something for the first time, this has nothing to do with expertise as no-one in this world is an “expert bounty curator”, this does not exist. The fact that a proposal for expansion is up is a step towards change. Do I have my own issues with how things were done? Of course I do and on many points I do agree with you

For the purpose of increasing speed and efficiency, we have done a trial run of proposal reviews and I can confirm that with the current curator set we are able to review 10 proposals on a weekly basis. Once everything is optimised I think this number will greatly increase.

As far as reporting goes, quarterly reports are all up to date, while some reports per event are missing due to issues experienced with typeform. So we are currently looking into the matter and sorting this out, while planning to introduce “strikes”. From now on, if teams don’t submit reports for up 2 months after the event, they will get strikes which prevent them from applying to the bounty.

Below is a structure that I have proposed in order to make the bounty even more efficient:

1. Curators review proposals and share their feedback
2. There will be a full time admin person which manages all the logistics
3. Part time communications person which would converse with the applicants, post on social media, update the community etc.
4. Onboarding a fraud investigator to look at every single entity and invoices and make sure that everything is squeaky clean

Results and second payouts are based on the performance that the proposers suggest themselves.

---

@rhee

A clarification on Zoe’s involvement with WebZero: I can personally confirm that she is not an active member and has not been since the inception of the organisation. The main reason she is associated with the group is because WZ was founded after a few of us hosted 4 events in 2022 during Blockchain Week Berlin, she was one of these individuals. Her only involvement was MC-ing at some of our events (Denver and Austin). I can see how a photograph on our website can be misleading and make you think that she is a cofounder. The bulk of the work in WebZero is done by myself, Roman and Elisabeth.

As for your question in regards to dev experience (which is not the job of an events bounty but devrel and Parity), we aim to fund side events and sponsorships at big web2 conferences such as We Are Developers or WebSummit, for the purpose of attracting more developers and we’d love to see more proposals coming through for hackathons and hacker houses.

---

@Nachito

Unfortunately, I think feedback forms are relatively useless . Let me also ask you, when is the last time you filled out a feedback form because I personally never, ever have. I don’t even take poaps . This feedback can only be traced with onboarded users, tracking the activity of new addresses etc. We can somewhat do this now, however, it is not matching the blockchain and privacy ethos. We need ZK apps and similar innovations to do actually measure metrics. We are currently trying to scope these features in WebZero and talk to various teams in the industry to see what kind of demands they would have for this. Then we will outline the features. Happy to work further with the community to outline these!

---

muddlebee

As Zoe mentioned, the bounty is not tied to the ambassador program and you should direct your questions to the events bounty email.

---

@djhatrang

We have done our best to facilitate one sub curator per continent to begin with . As the subcuator sets will expand, you are more than welcome to make suggestions of other folks or become a candidate yourself.

We currently have Mr Cole as part of ChaosDAO who has an overview of the Asian market, as well as Darren(ex Parity) as a sub curator who is knowledgeable in the same.

---

@Kratist0s

Totally agree that there should be some kind of structure and metrics, hence why we have proposed the below categories, rather than regions, as funding per regions may be limiting and it would be a shame for some folks to feel left out (I personally want to see more events in the Africa as this is where the most crypto is held):

• Cross-chain side events, conference sponsorships (including web2 developer conferences)
• Hackathons
• Networking/ BizDev events
• Local and ambassador run meetups

I hope the above clarifies your queries!