PLEASE VOTE NAY. TIMING OUT.

Thank you to everyone for commenting. As explained 3 weeks ago, the proposal tested the water for both the community appetite to spend and the structure of this initiative. It was clear within the first few days that we needed to regroup and the decision was taken by the Ambassadors through discussion that we would leave it up to gather further feedback upon which to continue building. An overview:

Supportive Points

• Proven Success: Genesis Cycle delivered results in mentorship, coordination, and onboarding.
• Strategic Continuation: Ascent Cycle builds on previous work with clear milestones and focus areas (e.g., education, governance).
• Community Building: Seen as a long-term investment in decentralised leadership and infrastructure.
• Positive Ambassador Experience: Some participants reported meaningful involvement and growth opportunities.

Critical Concerns

• Excessive Compensation: Salaries seen as too high and not well-justified; imbalance between leadership and grassroots contributors.
• Lack of Transparency: Unclear selection process for roles; perception of favoritism or nepotism.
• Questionable Impact: Doubts about program effectiveness, community benefit, or return on investment.
• Proposal Structure: Too large and bundled; mixes unrelated initiatives; difficult to evaluate properly.
• Calls for Delay: Many prefer waiting for the upcoming on-chain governance tools before approving such funding.

Expected Changes

• Break the proposal into smaller, separate parts for clearer evaluation.
• Make all roles openly accessible and selection processes transparent.
• Rebalance the budget to fairly compensate active community members.
• Wait for on-chain governance to manage future ambassador initiatives.

The proposal:

• THE VIDEO: The Ascent Cycle.mp4
• THE DECK: The Ascent Cycle.pdf
• THE FULL PROPOSAL: The Ascent Cycle
• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19cNuH8HrW6LzNyMvotwIUHbvuF_kanEcsqIOslvBH2U/edit?gid=1880921590#gid=1880921590 – Key Data [team, financials]