Gavin's first treasury proposal: Restarting Polkadot's human-centric growth with "individuality"!

Last week, Gavin Wood shared his first personally written treasury proposal—#1783 "Polkadot People Initiative"—with the community via livestream for the first time. This is not just a budget request, but a systematic experiment about "people": enabling real individuals, rather than bots and speculators, to become the economic and governance cornerstone of Polkadot.

#1783:

The proposal is built on Project Individuality—a new "proof of personhood" system based on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK) and Bandersnatch Ring VRF, ensuring "I am a real person, not just an account." It will run on the Polkadot People Chain, be managed directly by the governance system, and seamlessly integrate with the Polkadot Hub and Mobile App, bringing the fairest on-chain incentive action in history to the ecosystem.

The three-tier funding mechanism is clear and transparent: registration incentives ensure early participants are not disadvantaged, ongoing incentives reward active and useful governance participants, and the global airdrop prize pool operates long-term with $250 weekly and $2,500 monthly grand prizes—executed automatically by on-chain logic without human intervention.

More importantly, behind this mechanism lies an ambitious vision: through DIMMs (Decentralized Identity Mechanisms), "proof of attention" mini-games, and anti-sybil design, "individuality" will become Polkadot's new public infrastructure.

From user onboarding, network security, future governance, Hub integration, to mobile experience, the proposal outlines five strategic directions, aiming to lead Polkadot from airdrops to a true "intelligent individual society."

This is not just an airdrop, but a launch ceremony for "society building." Gavin said: "Treasury funds should invest in logic, not individuals." This may be the first time in Polkadot treasury history that a proposal has a clear vision, technical foundation, and social ideals in parallel.

Keep reading to learn more in the article organized by PolkaWorld!

Jay: Hey everyone, welcome to our special livestream with Gavin Wood! Today we're talking about the Polkadot People Initiative, the brand new referendum proposal #1783 that just went live. We've invited Gavin to explain it in person. Gavin, where are you right now?

Gavin: Hi Jay, I'm currently in Cascais, to be precise, in its suburbs.

Jay: Cascais? Where is that?

Gavin: It's a small city about half an hour's drive from Lisbon.

Jay: Oh, are you in the Polkadot Palace?

Gavin: Yes. The palace is still a construction site at the moment and may take some more time to complete. But it's slowly taking shape. I haven't had a chance to walk around properly this time, so there are no new details yet. I'll try to make time to check it out and can update everyone in the next livestream.

Jay: That’s great. It would be even better to see some real photos. The renderings Sasha from W3F did before were stunning.

Gavin: Hopefully, when it officially opens, the real thing will look close to the renderings.

Project Individuality: An Anti-Sybil System for the Intelligent Agent Society

Jay: Okay, let's get back to today's main topic—the proposal. Let me see... Yes, this is the new proposal that just went live a few minutes ago. It's actually a continuation of the proposal submitted a few weeks ago by the Entropretty account.

To recap: Entropretty proposed selling about $3 million worth of DOT within five days, exchanging it for Hollar, to fund an "identity incentive" plan. But the details were vague at the time, so most people voted against it, and the proposal was withdrawn. Today’s version is an adjusted version based on the original plan.

This time, the change is: instead of using DOT to DCA (dollar cost average) into Hollar, it will use USDT and USDC for the exchange. In other words, switching from centralized stablecoins to decentralized stablecoins supported by more credible mechanisms.

Even more exciting, this proposal comes with a lot of previously undisclosed background information. Who wrote this? Was it you?

Gavin: Yes, I wrote this content.

Jay: Okay, the early voting results show that 48,750 DOT already support this proposal. Let's see why these early voters are so excited. I'll read and ask you questions as we go, okay?

Gavin: Sure, no problem.

Jay: Great, let's start here: The proposal says, "The upcoming project is a brand new Polkadot-native 'proof of personhood' system designed and developed by Parity Technologies over the past three years—Project Individuality. This system is an autonomous logic structure that provides strong anti-sybil capabilities for the intelligent agent society we are forming."

Wait, is Project Individuality the new name for this plan?

Gavin: Strictly speaking, it's not a new name. I actually used this name when I first introduced the project a year or two ago. The purpose of the name is to emphasize that this is not about "identity," but about the concept of "individuality."

That is, we want to build privacy protection into the system design from the start, rather than copying traditional identity systems.

Jay: Right, I remember we talked about this in a bar in Vancouver about a year ago. You said, "individuality" means a person can prove they are an independent individual and build a reputation in a specific context, but that reputation is not forcibly bound or transferred across different contexts like identity is. Is that summary accurate?

Gavin: Absolutely correct! The key point is, "individuality" is actually a social service. We've long known about such services, like "voting eligibility." Governments provide these services through identity, like issuing passports or ID cards.

But the problem is, when you start using these passports, IDs, or credit cards, you reveal "who you are" and link your actions across different scenarios.

And that's exactly what we don't want. We don't want to achieve "individuality" through this bad path, but to build it the right way from the start—so the system truly provides the "individuality service" it should, rather than being hijacked by the concept of "identity."

"The Fairest Airdrop Ever": Bringing Real Users On-Chain, Not Speculators

Jay: Awesome. You wrote in the proposal: this system will run on the Polkadot People Chain, be governed by the Polkadot governance system, and will be seamlessly integrated into the upcoming Polkadot mobile app and Polkadot Hub. It's based on open standards and APIs, welcoming third-party integration.

By the way, is this Polkadot mobile app replacing the "Polkadot App" we mentioned earlier this year, the one the Birdo team is working on? Or are these two different projects?

Gavin: No, it's the same one. It's the Polkadot App, but now we call it "Polkadot Mobile." This actually aligns with Polkadot's "Second Era Strategy"—a repositioning of what Polkadot should be and how it should be perceived in the future.

The app is also undergoing some restructuring: we're reprioritizing features, some are being enhanced, some delayed. But overall, it's still the same team and codebase. So it's not a "complete reboot," just a directional adjustment.

Jay: Okay, let's get to the core. The heart of this proposal is to fund a large-scale Polkadot user onboarding campaign, the so-called "The Fairest Airdrop Ever." The goal is not only to attract users outside the Polkadot community but also ordinary people outside the broader crypto space.

Participants don't need to hold any tokens, accounts, or wallets—unlike other airdrop projects, eligibility isn't based on "how many times you clicked in the past." The funds also include a long-term incentive mechanism to ensure new users stay and become long-term contributors to the ecosystem.

The proposal also mentions that Project Individuality will serve as the underlying technology, providing unprecedented support for this campaign, helping people get on-chain as individuals and incentivizing them to keep participating in ecosystem activities.

Gavin: Exactly. The key is, this can't be a "one-time snapshot" event. We must ensure it's sustainable and leaves a lasting presence. Only then can Polkadot truly achieve its long-term growth strategy.

Jay: This part is also interesting: Polkadot needs a technology-driven, decentralized, secure user incentive onboarding plan. These funds will be used to achieve that goal.

The key point: fund distribution will be entirely controlled by on-chain automated logic. Neither Parity nor any other ecosystem organization will participate in fund allocation or have any operational authority. The logic will strictly follow the on-chain proposal, be reviewed and executed by the standard Polkadot governance mechanism, and be subject to external audits like system code. I think this is crucial.

Because last time, many questioned: "Why use treasury funds? Why not have Parity or W3F pay?"

And you also explained here—this is actually a project to lay the foundation for Web3 citizenship, and must be completed within the OpenGov framework, not relying on any external entity.

Gavin: That's right, and here's a bit of history. We initially considered naming this project "Web3 Citizenship," but that name is now deprecated. The term still appeared in the last proposal because I wasn't directly involved in that submission. Once discovered, we immediately corrected it.

To be precise, this is a Polkadot user growth plan.

Since it's a Polkadot user growth plan, it should naturally be funded by Polkadot itself.

A Three-Tier Incentive Mechanism for Large-Scale User Onboarding

Jay: Got it. Now let's get into the details of fund usage. This time, the funds will be divided into three independent and fully autonomous incentive mechanisms:

First is the "launch incentive," designed to ensure that the earliest and most active Polkadot People participants don't suffer economic losses and can even gain some profit. Individual incentive amounts will be divided into three tiers: $200, $100, or $50, depending on when they participate.

So this part is basically a pure registration incentive, right?

Gavin: Basically yes, the goal is to get everyone to truly become part of the system and invest in it. But it's not just as simple as "downloading and installing an app." We want participants to show real and unique individuality, because the system must have strong anti-sybil capabilities.

You can buy a cheap phone to register an account, but that doesn't prove you're an independent person. We need credible economic signals, and these signals must be open and transparent so anyone who wants to verify can be convinced.

Jay: Okay, the second part of the funds will be used for ongoing incentives, only given to users who are both active and useful in the new Polkadot governance system. Individuals can earn up to about $10 per week, depending on their contribution, measured by a decentralized, game-theoretically reliable autonomous system. I understand this is the ongoing activity incentive pool, right?

Gavin: That's right, this part is to keep users active. Of course, we won't let anyone become a millionaire in this system (laughs), its purpose is to provide moderate incentives for continued participation.

More importantly, this "activity" must have real value for the entire Polkadot ecosystem. It's not just about getting people to click a few times, but about creating real economic value. This actually refers to an "oracleization system."

Why do we need this system?

• First, the Proof of Personhood mechanism itself needs an oracleization system to support it;
• Second, in the long run, an effective decentralized oracleization system is hugely valuable for the entire Polkadot application platform—both for community parachain teams and Parity's own products.

Simply put, it's a mechanism for the system to reach reasonable consensus on "undisputed issues," a useful piece of infrastructure.

Jay: I remember when we talked about Proof of Personhood last year, you also mentioned "oracleization," and linked it to the concept of "justice." Has it gone further now?

Gavin: Yes, it has indeed gone further. The code name for this oracleization system is Mob Rule. The idea is "rule of the crowd," but our ultimate goal is to upgrade it to a more "judicial-based" system, similar to traditional civil court mechanisms—of course, here "mechanism" refers to game-theoretic infrastructure.

For now, Mob Rule is sufficient to support current needs.

Jay: Got it, let's move on. Finally, most of the funds will be used for the global weekly airdrop system: randomly distributing small rewards to Polkadot users worldwide. Each prize is about $250, with a monthly "star prize" of $2,500. About 140 prizes are expected to be awarded each week, while ensuring the winning probability does not exceed 1/10. Sounds like a lottery system to keep people engaged.

Specifically, the allocation ratio of these three types of funds has not been determined yet and will ultimately be decided by the Polkadot governance system. However, the expectation is that no more than one-third of the funds will go to the first two parts (registration + activity incentives), with the remaining two-thirds going to the airdrop prize pool.

Gavin: I think this ratio is reasonable. Of course, the final confirmation should be voted on separately by the governance process, but as things stand, this allocation is feasible.

Jay: So the first step is: we exchange about $3 million into Hollar, deposit it into Peoplechain, and then the community will decide the specific allocation through subsequent votes.

Gavin: Yes, that's basically it. I think when setting expectations, you can treat this 1/3 to 2/3 ratio as a reasonable parameter. I mentioned it in the proposal so everyone knows that if the final result is indeed 1/3 to 2/3, we as voters should respect this initial consensus.

Using Zero-Knowledge Technology to Prove You're "A Person," Not Just an Account

Jay: No problem, it's good to have a clear direction. Let's continue.

Project Individuality is the underlying technology for this user onboarding and community expansion campaign. It does not attempt to identify people—no ID, phone number, email, bank card, payment info, or any Web2 login is required. It stays true to Satoshi's ideal: managed by no one, maintained by everyone.

Project Individuality uses the latest zero-knowledge proof (ZK) technology, audited and supported by the Web3 Foundation's cryptography research team, and will also be adopted by the JAM protocol.

This technology gives us enough reason to claim: users can remain anonymous when using various applications and services on Polkadot. In each app, users operate under an unlinked alias, and only the user knows the connection between these aliases.

Let me confirm, for example, if I'm participating in the "validator voting game" we've discussed before, the behavioral data and reputation I generate there won't carry over to other scenarios, like a private group chat or another app, right?

Gavin: That's right.

Jay: So how is this "context isolation" achieved?

Gavin: Through ZK (zero-knowledge) technology. Our Web3 Foundation research team has developed a foundational technology called Bandersnatch Ring VRF over several years. This technology was not originally designed for this project, but for the JAM protocol and its early algorithm Sassafras, which is a block production mechanism.

As for how it works, it's hard for me to fully explain (laughs), but that's beyond what we need to understand now. What it can do is ensure a person truly belongs to a specific set of people, and can generate a unique alias in a specific context.

There are two core functions here, which are the clever parts of this system:

1️⃣ Proving you belong to a set.

For example, a set could be all people Polkadot is sure are real; another set could be all validators at the current block height. We can define any number of sets, which is very useful in itself.

2️⃣ Generating independent aliases for specific contexts within the same set.

For example, in the "voting scenario" or "governance scenario," my name (alias) is unique in that scenario. But it can't be linked to aliases in other scenarios. And within the same scenario, I can only have one alias, I can't create a second one.

This is the key: it gives each set member one and only one "name"—not a legal identity, not a username, but a cryptographic alias.

This is the core technology supporting "individuality" rather than "identity."

Jay: Right, but in the same scenario, this alias can "develop into an identity," right? For example, in that game, people will gradually know who "Swollen Mongoose" is, but that reputation won't carry over to other scenarios.

Gavin: Exactly, unless the user chooses to link them.

Jay: Right, like if I show a proof to link these identities myself.

Gavin: Yes, that's right.

From Ink to Video: Using Gamified Mechanisms to Verify "You're a Real Person"

Jay: Okay, let's talk about DIMMs.

DIMMs stands for "Decentralized Identity Mechanisms," an on-chain autonomous logic designed to ensure it's difficult and costly for a person to fake multiple identities. The first two DIMMs systems are in the final stages of testing and optimization and will go live in the coming months. They are:

Proof of Ink (POI)

Proof of Video Interaction (PAVI)

These mechanisms will run on the Polkadot People Chain, be managed by the Polkadot governance system, and be open to anyone who wants to extend them. Parity plans to submit a third and fourth mechanism to the community in the coming months.

The design philosophy of DIMMs follows four core principles:

1️⃣ Privacy—No personal information required;

2️⃣ Universality—Similar to fungibility, treats everyone equally, unrelated to social relationships;

3️⃣ Transparency—Anyone can verify others' status;

4️⃣ Resilience—Can resist well-funded but resource-limited malicious actors.

"Proof of Ink" was introduced in your 2024 Web3 Summit speech, but "Proof of Video Interaction" is being explained publicly for the first time. It offers another way to participate for those who find "Proof of Ink" too high a barrier.

Specifically, participants spend 5 minutes each week joining a synchronous video call with 15 users from around the world, playing a simple, silent mini-game. The game is fun, engaging, and very simple. I remember seeing a demo at a Parity team retreat. Do you want to talk more about what it's like?

Gavin: I think the description in the copy is clear enough. Once it goes live, people will quickly understand how it works, communicate, write articles, and comment. So I don't think it's necessary to explain more now.

Jay: Okay, let's wait for it to go live. But this is a weekly participation, right?

Gavin: Yes, our current expectation is for weekly interaction at a fixed time, aiming to make it convenient for users worldwide. It will probably be around 9am UK time (GMT), possibly on weekends. Of course, this needs further research to see which time slot is best. It may also be adjusted based on community feedback in the future.

The core idea is: everyone participates at the same time. Because the game is designed to test your "attention," you can't multitask or operate multiple accounts simultaneously.

Jay: Right, but I just hope it's not scheduled at 2am Toronto time...

Gavin: I've thought about that too (laughs). I think for players in the Americas, we may set up a separate game, because daytime is fine for Europe and Asia, but it's awkward for the Americas.

We may design a mechanism to verify players are really in that region, like asking them to film outside to confirm it's daytime, then they can join a separate synchronized game session.

Jay: Got it. Actually, these games can't be "completely unbreakable," right? The point isn't perfection, but making "faking multiple identities" extremely expensive and inconvenient.

Gavin: Exactly. The game itself is very simple, its purpose is just to test if the player is really paying attention. In other words, it's a "proof of attention," or more accurately, "proof of undivided attention."

Five Strategies: Leading Polkadot from Airdrop to a True Social System

Jay: Great. Next, let's look at the five strategic priorities you wrote in the proposal.

Strategy section: To ensure this action has long-term results, it will be part of a larger plan, coordinated with other initiatives.

First, high-quality mass communication materials: to get global users to pay attention to this "giveaway event" and understand how to participate and the ideas behind it.

In the coming days, weeks, and months, relevant personnel from Parity and Web3 Foundation will promote it in various forms and on different platforms, helping community members understand and participate in the publicity.

Professional promotional materials and mainstream media distribution channels are expected to be used to reach a wider audience.

Gavin: Yes, so this interview is just a start, but the ultimate goal is to go beyond the crypto space and reach the broader public, not just the Polkadot community.

Jay: Exactly. And I think this needs careful planning. We've already started discussing it. In fact, today's conversation and the proposal article are the starting point of this communication.

But the ultimate goal is clear: to spread to a wider society, not just the Web3 circle. Is anyone currently responsible for this communication direction?

Gavin: Of course, within core organizations like Parity and Web3 Foundation, there are team members with relevant experience and creativity who may spend time coordinating or supporting this work. But I hope this communication is an open, decentralized discussion. We don't intend to work behind closed doors, especially since these organizations are not large. We want it to be a bottom-up, organically growing community activity, attracting as many community members as possible to participate.

Jay: Understood. Although it may be early to ask, do you think there will be a new spending proposal in the future to support this communication strategy?

Gavin: I think if someone in the future (whether Parity, Web3 Foundation, or individual community members or teams) can propose a reasonable spending plan to expand the impact of this action and broaden user onboarding channels, then all governance voters should be ready to express their rational opinions and vote.

Jay: Okay, let's look at the second strategic point: deeply integrating Polkadot's staking protocol with this action, both enhancing Polkadot's network security and reducing overall security costs.

This "Polkadot New Deal" philosophy is: to provide long-term, fair economic returns for all individuals participating in Polkadot security maintenance. Polkadot can thus obtain security at lower cost, reduce total token supply, and end inflation; ordinary users only need to perform a few simple operations on their phones to receive rewards and services.

In other words, this will allow DOT to truly realize Satoshi-style crypto ideals: individuals systematically collaborate to maintain the network and receive a fair share from a limited value pool.

Sounds like this is part of the "new nomination mechanism" you mentioned before, right?

Gavin: Yes, but I haven't formally documented it yet. I hope to discuss it in depth with the Web3 Foundation research team and other trusted people first.

But for me, this direction is reasonable. We've discussed similar ideas before, right, Jay? Especially in the context of limiting supply and building a long-term sustainable economic model.

Polkadot's past security costs mainly relied on inflation, i.e., continuously issuing new DOT to fund the validator network, but that's a costly and unsustainable model.

Now we need to rethink: besides increasing demand, can we provide security through structural decentralization? Let the system's security come from a large but dispersed group, not from capital staking.

This approach makes the network more economically sustainable and gives us greater strategic freedom, making Polkadot's economic model healthier.

Jay: Even so, people will still have incentives to participate in the "security game," like choosing validators, right?

Gavin: Yes. The incentive may look like "nomination rewards," but the amount will be much smaller because participating in this system doesn't involve economic risk.

Jay: Got it, that's cool. So far, we have three strategic directions:

First is user onboarding (funnel),

Second is security enhancement (security),

Third is governance mechanism (governance).

Gavin: That's right. The third direction is to fully integrate this mechanism into the Polkadot governance system. Besides applying it in the new staking protocol, it can also be used for decentralizing and democratizing governance.

A successful Polkadot People system can set up an independent treasury under the "one person, one vote" principle or introduce secure quadratic voting mechanisms.

In addition, users who continuously support and help pass successful proposals in voting will gain greater voting weight in the future. Over time, Polkadot's OpenGov is expected to evolve into Polkadot FutaGov (Future Governance).

Jay: Futa? Is that short for "Future Governance"?

Gavin: Yes, "Futa" comes from "Futaki," similar to a combination of "Future + Takai (advanced)," but the name isn't final yet (laughs).

Jay: I think "FutaGov" sounds pretty cool.

Gavin: Haha, yes, anyway, it's another governance game based on "individuality."

Jay: Indeed. And to play this governance game, we need a decentralized and robust individuality system that ensures economic soundness while truly evolving the governance mechanism.

Okay, the fourth point is also interesting: full integration into Polkadot Hub. As Polkadot Hub becomes an important supplement for decentralized application development in the parachain ecosystem, it will enable more people to build prototypes and products faster and more efficiently.

But if we truly want this strategy to reestablish Polkadot as a "leading innovator," Hub developers need more than just regular smart contract infrastructure. Large Web2 companies have long understood: users like free services, and the prerequisite for free services is strong anti-sybil capabilities.

Gavin: Polkadot should enable zero-cost transfers for all users. When you send $50 to a friend, they should receive $50, not $49.98. Especially when it comes to "money," this issue becomes even more critical.

And when the "individuality system" is fully integrated into Polkadot's high-performance logic core—Polkadot Hub—the results of this action can be maximized and have real economic impact.

Jay: That's cool, can you elaborate on this?

Gavin: Of course. In fact, we've been refining Polkadot Hub within the Parity and Fellowship teams for years, and it's finally close to launch. Polkadot is completing its transformation, gradually evolving into a new "L1 smart contract hosting platform." We have very powerful technology, but if we want it to truly succeed—we must do everything possible to attract users, developers, teams, entrepreneurs, and visionaries.

One key to achieving this is a robust economic anti-sybil mechanism, i.e., the economic foundation for people to create "free services" on Polkadot L1.

This is crucial. On one hand, we have the JAM protocol, which provides massive computing and storage capacity; on the other, we need a second pillar—an anti-spam mechanism. The "individuality system" is the core of this economic anti-spam mechanism.

Jay: Great. The fifth point is: not only seamless integration into the native Polkadot mobile app, but also expansion to all fully supported access points. For any service aiming for mass adoption, accessibility is *crucial*, whether it's web, desktop, or mobile.

Polkadot will have dedicated teams to ensure users get a smooth, enjoyable experience no matter what device they use. I remember you mentioned last week on the Space Monkeys show that Polkadot App will support three entry points, is this what you meant?

Gavin: Basically, yes. I remember calling it "Polkadot's Second Era" at the time.

This is actually a broader part—Polkadot's long-term strategic goal is: to make all Polkadot services and experiences as frictionless as possible for users, and to make the process an "enjoyable experience."

Currently, user experience in both Polkadot and other Web3 projects is far from ideal. If I have to go through a centralized exchange to start using it, that's not Web3. That's not the beginner experience we want.

I'm not too concerned about existing crypto users—they are actually very few globally, with the latest estimates at only 300,000 to 500,000 people. The real target is the much broader general user base.

Jay: I think that goal even sounds a bit optimistic (laughs).

Gavin: Haha, but this isn't new. If you watch old Steve Jobs interviews from the 80s, he repeatedly emphasized: "Make technology an enjoyable experience." That's also one of the goals Polkadot's user onboarding strategy must achieve.

Jay: Exactly. And "enjoyable experience" here doesn't mean "super simple" like Web2—just fill in an email and everything is tied to a centralized identity. Polkadot aims for a different experience: especially as the DIMM mechanism (decentralized identity mechanism) rolls out, it can add more "human and community" elements, making people truly enjoy it.

This is not just about cultivating "Polkadot citizens," but about forming a sense of community.

Gavin: Yes, that's exactly the idea I want to convey with "Agentic Society" and "Polkadot People."

We're actually building a "society"—a community where people are willing to interact and participate together.

And the name "Polkadot People" is very fitting: it centers on Polkadot and focuses on "people" themselves. The two words together are apt and catchy.

This Is the First Treasury Proposal I've Written, and I Hope It Sets a Standard Example

Jay: Okay, we have to wrap up, but this conversation was fantastic. The most exciting thing is: this is the first time the Polkadot Treasury has presented such a clear vision—a concrete, actionable overall strategy. It's truly inspiring and gives confidence for the future.

Can we expect more proposals like this in the future?

Gavin: I think so. In fact, this is the first treasury proposal I've personally written.

Jay: Wow, that's great, it really might be the first time.

Gavin: When I wrote this proposal, of course, the primary task was to clearly explain how the funds should be used and for what purpose; but deep down, I also hoped to set a standard: if I were a DOT voter, this is what I would want a treasury spending proposal to look like.

I think a good proposal should include:

• Clear strategic goals; 
• Specific spending purposes; 
• Spending should invest in "logic systems" rather than "individuals"; 
• And clearly state what supporting actions are needed to maximize impact. 

I've seen too many proposals over the past few years, and many lack this structure. In fact, a good proposal doesn't need to be lengthy—concise, powerful, and focused is key: clarify three things, explain them, do them, then finish.

Jay: Totally agree. By the way, since we're now reducing DOT issuance and treasury income, there's currently a proposal to cancel the 1% DOT burn mechanism. Do you support it?

Gavin: I support it. Under the new DOT economic model's supply structure, continuing to burn that 1% no longer makes sense. So I fully agree it should be canceled. If not burned, those funds should go into the issuance buffer, not just "disappear into the void" as they do now.

Jay: Right, exactly. That would be too wasteful. Awesome, Gav, thank you so much for joining the show! Have a great day, and see you soon!

Gavin: Thank you, Jay. Glad to be here and chat.

Original video: