Community owned DED requires community funding… else how?
Here we explain some thinking about DED and its current situation in the lead up to going live.
Here we have a 100% community owned project, with 0% team allocation (No upfront shares for the team). What we request is at the minimum, some funding to get it birthed successfully and for it to stand on its own feet. Just like a parent would do for its child. This proposal reflects that intention.
My question to @Saxemberg is if you support the success of DED in the form of being a 100% owned token by DOT, then why not support this?
Else tell me what is wrong with it and i can try and fulfill your requests.
Why NAY now?
If you vote NAY on DED from now, then does that not mean that the ~$1m already assigned for marketing and legal goes mostly to waste?
How does it make sense to outright any further funding?
What about the team?
Remember they receive no team allocation.
100% Airdrop for sure
What is for sure about this proposal, is that if funds are used, they will be used for exactly what is promised. which is to deliver 100% DED to DOT holders. This is the thesis and values of “DOT is DED”. We have already done it on a test net. This is ready to go live and the referendum unlocks that key deliverable. Lets do dis no?
DED sets new standards
This community project is not your average “whitepaper, roadmap, token sale, airdrop, etc” from the older ages with a centralised company hierarchy with a unilateral perspective, it has more dynamic and emergent properties spawning from an (already living) decentralised organism.
Re: Ref 556
-Giotto, does what he does best which involves exploring thought experiments with the community (like a snake charmer), where a lot of the time, clarity is gained and the community grows together. I wasnt aware of that proposal (556) until it was launched, but I agree with him that something polkadot owned 100% should be funded 100%. You cant have something 100% and expect it to fund itself before launch.
“How many more?” make DED Team sad
Asking “how many more proposals?” has a demoralising effect. Because DED is not launching with one single monoproposal of ~$Xm, and the guys doing the hard stuff not just the sexy stuff are the ones who will suffer. The team. This impacts morale,
and denying them questions the dynamic of retroactive proposals, which already puts the contributor in a precarious position.
Sentiment: Pay marketing Chads, rest are peasants
The main cost was “marketing”, everyone was happy to provide funds to promote DED and polkadot ecosystem. But the core contributors, (who are members of — and working for — the polkadot community), get no equity in DED (because there is none to give), are being left by the wayside, when it comes to remuneration. Can you see how this impacts morale? and it questions the very dynamic of retroactive proposals, which already puts the contributor in a precarious position.
The crux is wen
The crux is people want to know: what is the plan, when are we going live, and how much longer time and funds is it going to take? This will be announced by the DOTisDED official channel. Wen Snapshot is looking like 4/20.
DED can be self sufficient, just needs some nurturing
The key point is…
After this proposal there is nothing stopping DED from going live, where then proposals can be made to request DED from the 38B DED treausry which reflects the DOT treasury. So after that, DED can then be not only 100% owned by DOT holders (providing possibly a major uplift in value) but it can also become self-funded in DED but still decided by DOT holders, through polkadot referendum.
Then in phase 2 after birthing, Polkadot community can decide DED be owned by DED holders, (like parity handing Polkadot to the community), and that is what the on-demand governance parachain for assets is for. It is for assets — such as DED — to have full-voting capabilities for the (owner, admin, issuer and freezer) asset privileges.
Bonded by values (just want some love too)
But with (this) Ref 548 you are definitely voting for 100% airdrop. No private investors. community owned and backed. These values are what me and the rest of the active contributors have been working towards (and what make the mission very clear).
The highest cost was marketing. The team are asking for merely some funding to recognise the effort and contribution required to build a successful community owned project.
Number of proposal no matter, upsides to having them
RE: no of proposals. If there was 1 proposal of $5m vs 5 proposals adding up to <$3m, you would likely go for the 5 proposals of <$3m. The number of proposals shouldnt matter too much. However having 1 proposal is probably clear, it requires knowing a lot of the unknowns before they are discovered. Treasury funding can also allow funding of different community stakeholders.
DED is One of One, no comparisons yet
We are also doing something that has very few analogues. A fair distribution that is 100% funded and owned by a community governed treasury. Given the newness of it, this is a learning process for all.
100% airdrop on test net
The 100% distribution of testDED has been delivered and can be viewed by going to
AssetHub Rococo, and going to `assets > account(id: 47, AccountId: [yourAccount])`
Might seem trivial but takes a lot to deliver and verify 1.2m accounts.
Doesnt make sense to change course
So changing from 100% means we have to break core values and promises, and this wastes all the work done and funding provided thus far.
DED is DOTs child owned by you and the rest of the community.
Remember 0% team allocation. What do you want for DED? If you want 100% owned by Polkadot community, please support.
