View All Big SpenderinBig Spender
Beneficiary:(164.99K DOT)
Requested:164.99K DOT
Rejected
Untitled Post
a year ago
This is a ReferendumV2 post. It can only be edited by the proposer of the post .
Comments (4)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (48)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (51)0.0 DOT
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
Hello from Polkadotters.
With the updates in this revised proposal, such as greater inclusivity, which would help ecosystem teams fund their projects by presenting at family office conferences, this proposal makes good sense. AYE on this one!
Hi,
Further to my comment on your rejected proposal, I'm happy to see your revised your proposal, but as long as you don't share part of your commissions from the raised funds, I can't vote Aye for this
The fact that you intend to invest the raised funds on the Polkadot project is obvious since your fund is already focused on Polkadot and you claim funds from the treasury, therefore investing in the Polkadot project isn't something unique nor special.
However, sharing your commission (like you would do with any other finder fee agent who helped you to raise funds) is the expected thing to do. According to you, without those $1m you have zero chances of raising $100m, therefore, it doesn't make sense that the treasury gets nothing. It takes all the risks (assuming you fail to raise $100m) but you take all the rewards assuming you manage to do it (Again, I'm talking from commissions fees perspective since your funds injection to Polkadot projects is obvious to me)
I wish you good luck