Transition to the On-Chain Collective: Next Steps for the Ambassador Fellowship

Ambassador Programme
1

NB: Throughout this document, the term “we” refers to the Ambassador collective as a whole. While levels of participation have varied — from those who’ve been active since January to those who haven’t engaged at all — this collective identity reflects the shared structure we’re building together. Approximately 60 Ambassadors joined this week’s calls, with many others listening to the recordings. It’s not possible to capture every individual viewpoint, especially from those who haven’t participated, but “we” is used here to represent the broader group — including those who may not have voiced their perspectives directly.

Current Situation
We officially wrapped up the Genesis Cycle (Establishment & Incubation Phase) of the Ambassador Fellowship on 3 May 2025 — a phase designed to explore, test, and gather input on how we work together and contribute to the Polkadot ecosystem.

We have now agreed to launch the Ascent cycle, which marks our move on-chain as a formal collective. This will be a lightweight operational phase, anchored by a single funding request: a modest allocation from the Polkadot Treasury to support coordination and continued experimentation around tooling, rewards, and recognition.

Pallet Configuration and Process Overview
The pallet from Ambassador Programme 2.0 has been reconfigured in line with the Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto.

  • Lucy Coulden [Rank III Ambassador] reached out to the Ambassadors and wider community for input and guidance after being asked to lead the conclusion of the first phase, as on-chain development had not yet begun.
  • Luke Schoen [Rank II Ambassador] used the manifesto to draft a detailed technical specification for the pallet configuration.
  • Lucy then translated this technical spec into simplified language, as requested earlier in the year by Joe Petrowski [Rank III Technical Fellow] and Bastian Kocher [Rank VI Technical Fellow].
  • Lucy engaged Anaelle, the Technical Fellowship Secretary, to discuss timelines and costs, as the community had been promised an update by 3 May. Anaelle invited Jesse Cheijieh [Rank I Technical Fellow] and Oliver Tale-Yadzi [Rank III Technical Fellow] into a working group with Lucy and Joe.
  • The group agreed on the price and timeline: Jesse would handle the coding, Oliver would review, and the changes would be included in the next runtime upgrade, with an estimated timeline of six weeks.
  • All technical work was completed as planned. Jesse then requested the names and verified wallet addresses of the Ambassadors to establish the on-chain collective.

At this stage, concerns were raised by an individual, prompting a temporary pause. The collective has since regrouped and agreed to open a broader discussion on the pallet configuration, aiming to reach a solution with broad agreement.

Ambassadors: Affirmed Fellowship Members
This refers to the list of Cohort I and II Ambassadors who have reaffirmed their commitment to join the initial on-chain collective. Given that further changes may arise in the coming days, we are asking all Ambassadors to complete the Google Form linked below to ensure we have the most accurate and up-to-date list.

The Ask: an open community discussion about the current on-chain pallet configuration. The Technical Fellowship has configured the previous Ambassador 2.0 pallet to align with the Ambassador Fellowship manifesto.

Discussed Next Steps

  • 7-day community discussion begins with this Forum post on Thursday 10 July 2025 @ 0200 UTC.
  • All Cohort I and II Ambassadors to complete Ambassadors: Final Commitment to the On-Chain Fellowship by the end of the community discussion period to be included in the following vote and final on-chain collective.
  • 72-hour Ambassador vote on Discord to follow, covering pallet changes and onboarding plans. Voters to be all Cohort I and II Ambassadors who have completed the final commitment form.
  • Pending green lights from W3F and the Technical Fellowship, the final list of ambassadors will be submitted for inclusion in the next runtime upgrade.
  • Merge cohorts and launch official on-chain request to the Technical Fellowship by Monday 21 July 2025, dependent on participation and alignment during this discussion phase.

Forum Discussion Reading Materials

Community Calls & Recordings
We recently hosted two community calls to align on where we are and where we are headed:

Key Takeaways

  • Strong consensus emerged to move the Ambassador Fellowship on-chain using the current pallet, though some concerns remain.
  • A 7-day discussion period begins immediately, followed by a vote if there’s sufficient support.
  • The move aims to bring transparent governance, verifiable ranking, and greater legitimacy, while keeping social dynamics and clear rules in focus.
  • Ranking mechanics need refinement to prevent power imbalances and ensure fair promotions.
    Cohort 2 ambassadors will join at rank 0, with promotion processes subject to community input.

1. On-Chain Implementation

  • The system includes tip bot and treasury functionality.
  • Enables transparent, verifiable ranking (not tied to compensation).
  • Aligned with the Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto and reviewed by the Technical Fellowship.
  • A process flow chart will be shared for community feedback.
  • Requires thorough testnet testing before mainnet deployment.

2. Governance & Voting Mechanics

  • Current structure could allow higher ranks to block promotions — a concern for fairness.
  • Suggestions include opening voting to all ranks or leveraging OpenGov for dispute resolution.
  • There’s a strong call for clear, codified rules to prevent abuse or gaming of voting power.

3. Ambassador Community Growth

  • Genesis cohort: 162 ambassadors, 12 funded projects.
  • 66% (106) of Cohort 1 want to move on-chain.
  • 46 new applicants have submitted detailed forms for Cohort 2.
  • Local initiatives (e.g., Florida events) highlight grassroots impact.
  • There’s growing energy to expand to new cities and welcome more ambassadors.

4. Ambassador Role & Compensation

  • The ambassador role remains recognition- and reputation-based, not salaried.
  • Future compensated roles may be introduced separately.
  • A Web3 Foundation proposal to reimburse travel and related costs is under review (not tied to ambassador rewards).

Documentation & Code

Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto

Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship: [detailed] Technical Specification

Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship: [Simple] Technical Specification

Ambassador Configurations #736

NB: During the call on Tuesday 8 July, there was a request for flow chart generation. This is not being shared as there are elements that need to be tested and adjusted as the configuration process was halted before the end. Rather than provide images that are 95% correct and distract the keen eyes from the conversation at hand, members of the Ambassador Fellowship are encouraged to generate UML diagrams based on the current and discussed processes themselves.

Concerns Raised [Please consider in your feedback / discussion points]
Vikk, Rank III Ambassador & Member of the Hungarian DAO

  1. “Let members remove themselves easily by unlocking their DOT through a mechanism where an Ambassador must first inform the Fellowship of their departure before their DOT is unlocked and they are removed from the on-chain collective.”
    What happens if they do not inform the Fellowship and just unlock their DOT?

  2. “The highest rank must go through a formal process with OpenGov if they wish to leave.”
    What is the formal process? Who decides on it? What happens if they do not go through the ‘formal process’ and just unlock their DOT?

  3. “Internal rank-weighted voting – set up a voting system inside the Ambassador Fellowship where higher ranks have more voting power.”
    Where is the consensus on the increase of the voting power per rank?

  4. “Create a small treasury just for tools and operational costs”
    What is small? Where would the money come from?

  5. “Create a tipping pool as part of the treasury. This is separate but linked to the main treasury and is voted on internally by Ambassadors.”
    So is it part of the treasury or not? How is it linked? How big is it? Where would the money come from (main treasury?)?

  6. “All voting takes place on the last working day of the month each month (Monday-Friday).”
    Voting time should be more than 1 day (maybe at least 3) and since we are in Web3 last working day of the month would be different in different parts of the world, so voting period should be better defined (like from 00:00 GMT on the first Tuesday to 24:00 CET on the first Thursday of the month).

  7. “Money requests must include a short description (memo) explaining what the funds will be used for.”
    What money requests? Only tips? What amount? Ambassadors would request for themselves or for others who did a good job?

  8. “Allow members to request promotions.”
    Originally it was discussed that a member should be put forward for promotion by vote by at least one rank higher (except if there isn’t one).

  9. “Check members’ activity in online engagement, offline engagement, governance, community growth, partnerships, and leadership. Expectations will vary according to rank / tier. Each higher rank should have tougher requirements.”
    Where is this defined EXACTLY with everybody agreeing so all Ambassadors know what to achieve for a higher rank and there can not be a different interpretation of the rules by different people?

  10. “Require a majority vote from members one rank higher for promotion.”
    This is a key difference from the manifesto. Originally if someone is being promoted to let’s say from R3 to R4 then ALL ambassadors would vote (according to their voting weight) and there is a SIMPLE MAJORITY (50% + 1 vote) the applicant advances up one rank. If this goes on-chain in its current format not only majority is not defined, but current R4s can KEEP ANYBODY ADVANCING TO R4 FOREVER EVEN IF ALL THE OTHER AMBASSADORS VOTE FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADVANCE. That is a serious flaw in the logic which should have been caught had it been discussed more thoroughly.

  11. “Specialist Groups (verticals)”
    This the PIF (Phragmen Initiative Funding) which should be totally separate from the Ambassador Fellowship pallet. Again, this was not discussed fully.

  12. “Members must act professionally, respectfully, and support the Polkadot network.”
    This is too vague and is open for different interpretations.

  13. “Small clarifications can be voted on by Ambassadors through the internal voting system. All voting will happen on the last working day of the month (Monday-Friday), along with treasury spends, promotions / demotions / removals.”
    What is defined as “small clarifications” and again, the voting period needs to be defined better.

  14. “Require major changes to go through the public Polkadot governance system.”
    I am not too sure what this refers to. If it is OpenGov then it needs to be clearly stated.

2 Likes
2

I will kick off with some responses to Vikk’s concerns as discussed on the call on Tuesday 8 July. Please note these are my personal viewpoints only.

  1. “Let members remove themselves easily by unlocking their DOT through a mechanism where an Ambassador must first inform the Fellowship of their departure before their DOT is unlocked and they are removed from the on-chain collective.”
    What happens if they do not inform the Fellowship and just unlock their DOT?*

A: This is not something that we intended to police when we wrote the manifesto. The intention of Fellowship was to be a vibrant space with many members, coming and going would be part of that. I would like to see that continue, but perhaps if an Ambassador is going into Tier 3 - Rank V and VI - there should be a forced mechanism by which they have to resign from their on-chain rank?

  1. “The highest rank must go through a formal process with OpenGov if they wish to leave.”
    What is the formal process? Who decides on it? What happens if they do not go through the ‘formal process’ and just unlock their DOT?*

A: This process needs to be designed. These were conversations we hoped would happen within the Fellowship that have not happened organically. I still think below Rank V and VI, which are the most externally facing roles, we cannot heavily police who comes and goes. But if there is a process, forum post / X / notice period?

  1. “Internal rank-weighted voting – set up a voting system inside the Ambassador Fellowship where higher ranks have more voting power.”
    Where is the consensus on the increase of the voting power per rank?*

A: This mirrors the Technical Fellowship and was voted in when the manifesto was voted in. It was also commented on in person by Gavin Wood at the meet up in Bangkok before the manifesto went live. It was strongly debated and I think stands with very strong consensus. The tech fellowship has demonstrated that it works, with their decisions being made mainly through cumulative rank voting - “members votes are weighted by their Rank as an item in the geometric series”.

  1. “Create a small treasury just for tools and operational costs”
    What is small? Where would the money come from?*

A: The incubation phase from Jan-May was a testing ground to see what worked. Funding was part of this. We learned that $300 per month gets us the basic tools. A detailed rewards&recognition framework was built and workshopped live by Ambassadors (all details on the notion). This was roughly costed up to get to an R&R budget. We also tested marketing, finance and education budgets. All of this evidence is how we would now extract a monthly cost based on number of Ambassadors and current needs. The money would come from the main treasury, as per the Technical Fellowship. It would be kept in the Ambassador treasury which is part of the pallet. All payments would be made via the rank voting system.

  1. “Create a tipping pool as part of the treasury. This is separate but linked to the main treasury and is voted on internally by Ambassadors.”
    Is it part of the treasury or not? How is it linked? How big is it? Where would the money come from (main treasury?)?

A: Transition to the On-Chain Collective: Next Steps for the Ambassador Fellowship Please see the tip bot here to understand how it works technically. I have answered the question about where the funds come from above. One thing that the W3F said was critical to their support in the on-chain Ambassador Fellowship was a mechanism to make sure that Ambassadors are paid for their contributions, so we have removed salaries (not in keeping with manifesto but were in the previous pallet) and introduced the tip bot.

  1. “All voting takes place on the last working day of the month each month (Monday-Friday).”
    Voting time should be more than 1 day (maybe at least 3) and since we are in Web3 last working day of the month would be different in different parts of the world, so voting period should be better defined (like from 00:00 GMT on the first Tuesday to 24:00 CET on the first Thursday of the month).*

A: This makes complete sense. As long as there is a regular cadence so people get into a rhythm, a 72 time period seems very sensible.

  1. “Money requests must include a short description (memo) explaining what the funds will be used for.”
    What money requests? Only tips? What amount? Ambassadors would request for themselves or for others who did a good job?*

A: Any expenses that come from the treasury. In the beginning, we would anticipate this being ongoing tooling costs and tips for Ambassador work, either self-proposed or nominated, voted on at the end of each month over a 72 hr period (as suggested above).

  1. “Allow members to request promotions.”
    Originally it was discussed that a member should be put forward for promotion by vote by at least one rank higher (except if there isn’t one).*

A: To my recollection, was never discussed, but I could be wrong. It seems that it would be a difficult system if an Ambassador had to rely on another Ambassador to recommend them for promotion. As Ambassadors are not paid roles and do not require consistent input, it could be quite an ask to be someones ‘sponsor’. This would also allow for favouritism and cliques to form - overlooking contributions. That would be my fear. If someone has a portfolio of work, the Ambassadors should vote on that and perhaps some testimonials in support would be great for any Ambassador.

  1. “Check members’ activity in online engagement, offline engagement, governance, community growth, partnerships, and leadership. Expectations will vary according to rank / tier. Each higher rank should have tougher requirements.”
    Where is this defined EXACTLY with everybody agreeing so all Ambassadors know what to achieve for a higher rank and there can not be a different interpretation of the rules by different people?*

A: As discussed at length when the manifesto was being written, we kept things flexible so that the Fellowship could adapt over time. What I believe you would hope to see is the bar rising as time goes on. As an Ambassador can be from any background, skillset, geography, ability, the differentiation in how their contributions are measured are too wide to tickbox at this point in time. Which is why having such a vibrant community will help to level out the voting playing field as we begin to better understand what each rank looks like. If definite skillsets and requirements emerge over time, these can be written into the manifesto, which should be considered a work in progress at all times (like all of us!).

  1. “Require a majority vote from members one rank higher for promotion.”
    This is a key difference from the manifesto. Originally if someone is being promoted to let’s say from R3 to R4 then ALL ambassadors would vote (according to their voting weight) and there is a SIMPLE MAJORITY (50% + 1 vote) the applicant advances up one rank. If this goes on-chain in its current format not only majority is not defined, but current R4s can KEEP ANYBODY ADVANCING TO R4 FOREVER EVEN IF ALL THE OTHER AMBASSADORS VOTE FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADVANCE. That is a serious flaw in the logic which should have been caught had it been discussed more thoroughly.*

A: As the manifesto currently states, Ambassadors one rank and above the intended promotion level are able to vote. This is similar to the technical fellowship, but reduces the number of ranks higher (tech fellowship is two and above). Again, we did not think we needed to reinvent the wheel as this works very well for the technical fellowship and there is no reason it should not for us. The highest rank applications will always have to go through OpenGov, not just the first. For example, if person A applies to OpenGov to move from a Rank IV to V, it will be voted on. If they are approved and they are the 1st Rank V, they will not vote the next person in, person B will also have to go to OpenGov to move to Rank V. The only time it could be a problem is at Rank V and VI, so maybe there is a number of Rank VIs required in place before people stop going to Open Gov for that role, or anyone that ever applies for Rank V and VI has to go through OpenGov. This might make sense as it is a high leadership role, so the person should have a very strong standing across the whole community.

  1. “Specialist Groups (verticals)”
    This the PIF (Phragmen Initiative Funding) which should be totally separate from the Ambassador Fellowship pallet. Again, this was not discussed fully.*

A: Two things here: 1. specialist verticals are not PIF. We need to separate the idea of PIF completely from the Fellowship. I think there was confusion over some of the original narrative, but PIF is a funding mechanism only. It was tested with some community and solo agents in Q1 2025, but it is nothing to do with the Fellowship or manifesto. Specialist verticals are the areas we would hope to see Ambassadors congregating according to their skillset. ie. Developers / BD / Marketing / Content Creation. There could be individuals that do this on a full-time basis and are also Ambassadors or receive a regular tip for leading a specialist vertical within the Fellowship, but it is not directly linked to the PIF funding mechanism (which does not currently exist and if and when it does, it will be for the entirety of the Polkadot community). 2. Specialist verticals are not here yet and that requires more thought from the Ambassadors to start configuring those groups and then from the technical side to see how we might work these into the pallet. For now, it is a complexity that we do not need and can be changed at a later date.

  1. “Members must act professionally, respectfully, and support the Polkadot network.”
    This is too vague and is open for different interpretations.*

A: Again, this is in the technical fellowship and in the absence of any code of conduct or people values in the Polkadot ecosystem, it is better than nothing :slight_smile: It has been widely agreed of late that we need to better define both of these things, but I do not think (personal opinion only) that there is anything that you can build into the pallet that will be impacted by decisions made on this point?

  1. “Small clarifications can be voted on by Ambassadors through the internal voting system. All voting will happen on the last working day of the month (Monday-Friday), along with treasury spends, promotions / demotions / removals.”
    What is defined as “small clarifications” and again, the voting period needs to be defined better.*

A: This definitely needs to be better defined. We could state - typo, etc - or just go blanket, any changes. The voting period for everything could work as once a month for 72 hours to start with if that is agreeable to everyone.

  1. “Require major changes to go through the public Polkadot governance system.”
    I am not too sure what this refers to. If it is OpenGov then it needs to be clearly stated.*

A: As above, I agree and think maybe moving forward it should be any changes. And with each change is a new draft number.

1 Like