Hi @Max

I fully respect your contribution to the Polkadot ecosystem, however I believe there should be a clear boundary on what kind of marketing the openGov should fund.

I agree with $1m marketing funding in order to to bring new money to Polkadot, but not in away where it benefits a private entity that will make ~3% a year for the entire life of the fund (and maybe beyond that since it may raise funds in the future from the same investors for other funds) out of their expected $100m AUM.

Using "napkin" math and assuming common VC annual fees of ~3% (both assets & carry) - the VC should make $15m in a course of 5 years (3% x 100m x 5 years), while the treasury gets nothing of it although it was the main contributor to raise those funds. I clearly understand your point that Polkadot will benefit from the new fresh money that will be injected to the ecosystem, but imho it's not enough. The Polkadot treasury/holders should get much more.

It's very common in the VC/hedge fund industry to pay a decent finders fee to the one who helped raise the funds, and here it's missing. The treasury/DOT holders should get a decent cut from the VC annual fees in order to make the deal fair for both sides. If it happens, I'll definitely support it.

Good luck!

Hello from Polkadotters!
Bringing attention to family funds via sponsoring their summits sounds like a pretty interesting idea. The proposal itself is very well structured and detailed, and the explanation at AAG was decent, so we feel that Max and Mario will bring value to the ecosystem. I think we are not the only ones who want “more Scytales to support more Mythicals”.
But, can you provide a proper budget breakdown? For a big spender, it seems to be quite vague in our opinion.