Wish for Change draft: release JAM state footprint as metered leases, not freehold sales

Governance
1

I am putting a draft Wish for Change here for feedback before anything goes on-chain. Delegates especially: I want your objections while the text is cheap to change.

Where this comes from. 1926 settled that every DOT-denominated proceed from JAMKB releases is burned, and left one question open: how much of the supply the DAO ultimately retains versus releases. This draft proposes the release-side policy for that open half. Footprint goes out as leases, never as freehold. It fills the gap 1926 named. It does not touch revenue, the settlement currency, or the mechanism choice.

Why now. The release question has become a live design input. The Kusama-futures paper published 24 August ends at a wholesale resource endowment on JAM Prime and asks for durability guarantees on footprint rights it does not price (thread 18482). Whatever one thinks of that scenario, the demand side is arriving before the rules exist. A properties frame on the record now is cheaper than one negotiated later under pressure.

What I am asking for. Objections first. ChaosDAO: your 1927 vote is part of why this text reads as it does. It fixes properties, names no mechanism, and precludes nothing; the denomination question stays closed. If it still overreaches, say where. That is the critique I want, not a commitment to anything.

Kingston007 and BizaRre stood with me on 1927 through a full referendum cycle. I am not assuming either stands behind this one. If you can, say so and I will list you as co-sponsors; anyone else who can support it, the same offer stands.

Process note. This text goes on-chain only after this consultation has done its work and co-sponsors are settled. I am not setting dates. Object to it, improve it, or support it here.

The full draft text follows.

Wish for Change (draft): release JAM state footprint as metered leases, not freehold sales

The wish

The DOT DAO adopts one policy for the state footprint it owns (JAMKB, or however the DAO’s holding ends up being represented):

Releases of footprint to third parties are metered and bounded. A release is a lease. The holder pays on a recurring schedule and holds for a long term. While payments continue, renewal is the default, and the terms of renewal are published before the holder must commit. When payments stop, the footprint becomes the DAO’s to allocate again. Under this policy the DAO releases footprint as metered leases. A permanent release is a different decision, and this wish sends it to its own Wish for Change.

Whatever mechanism carries the lease is a design choice: a decaying-deposit model, an auction, a fixed-term contract, or something not yet written. This wish binds the properties a chosen mechanism must have. The mechanism and the settlement unit are not decided here, and neither is the pricing curve.

Why a lease

The footprint stays on the DAO’s books while the market learns what it is worth. A sale prices future demand with today’s information. A lease can reprice as demand shows itself.

W3F voted AYE on 1926. Explaining its 1927 vote, it said it sees the value of DOT being used for JAM. Its objection: “too early for the specifics”, and “we would not like to see other mechanisms for distributing JAMKB precluded at this stage”. This wish takes both statements seriously. It fixes properties and leaves the parameters open; the mechanism stays with the design process.

Paid persistence is also what keeps state bounded. Footprint that stops paying returns to the pool by the mechanism itself, with no eviction decision for anyone to make and no stranded state to sweep. Free persistence is what let Ethereum’s state grow without limit.

The system already runs this way where it can. Coretime is sold on metered terms, and W3F’s Bill Laboon has framed JAMKB as a resource the DAO controls the way it controls parachain cores. A lease is that same relationship for the one resource in the system that cannot be enlarged.

The commitment this completes

1926 passed with a line worth quoting: “Every byte of JAM state occupied takes DOT out of circulation” is called there a simple, verifiable commitment. That commitment is true per byte, over time, only while payments recur. Under a one-time sale, a byte’s payment burns once and the commitment ends for that byte. A lease keeps it true for as long as the footprint is used.

What this leaves open

  • The mechanism. Decaying deposits, auctions, fixed-term leases, a design not yet written: all compatible if they carry the properties above. The choice belongs to the design process, and this wish picks nothing.
  • Cadence and price. Nothing here sets how much footprint is released, when, or at what price.
  • Revenue. 1926 already settles it: all DOT-denominated JAMKB proceeds are burned, whatever form the release took, and non-DOT proceeds are converted and burned with it. This wish adds no revenue rule and changes none.
  • Implementation. No pallet or runtime is named. As with any Wish for Change, this is a signal of community sentiment, not a protocol change in itself; a future technical implementation is bound by it.
  • Settlement currency. Not reopened. 1927 asked the DAO to fix the unit now and was rejected with stated reasons; the conversion path in 1926 already makes any unit workable. Prices may be quoted in dotUSD or any other unit.

The gap in 1926 that this wish fills

1926’s text names what it does not decide: “How much of JAMKB’s total supply the DAO ultimately retains versus releases to private ownership. That is an independent question that the present WFC does not decide.” A lease settles it for as long as the policy stands. What the DAO leases stays owned by the DAO, and the dial the DAO controls is the release rate. If the DAO ever wants a permanent release instead, the guard in the wish sends that decision to its own vote.

References

2

Honestly the DAO shouldn’t retain anything. Otherwise investors will keep fleeing in droves from DOT.

We know in what the DAO spends the money when it has it (Polkadot Inter Miami, Daly’s Indy 500 car, HEROIC E-sports, Stellaswap incentives, Mythical Games swap, etc).

Take into account most DOT holders are at loss, about 90% or more of them and they aren’t even at break even point.

It is time for Polkadot to give back to the community that invested its money so it could function and haven’t seen a profit in years. Throwing more money at the problem won’t solve the issues, it will be wasted money.

3

Agreed, lease feels like the better mechanism here.