hello [@pandres95](12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR-polkadot) ,

can you explain why the fellowship just cover a part of your total request? Thanks

Hi [@SIM-DOT](15wbv2fXuFoeRcrWK4Q1Y5oM9LfsJyGmMXaUWDoAWXpZzWSp-polkadot)!

Yes. Since I presented these projects for assessment as part of my quarterly retention arguments, I considered it fair to assert that the Fellowship covered part of my overall time working on this project, essentially because it was not the only contribution I made during the same time in the Fellowship.

My monthly allowance at the time (for a Rank I) was $833.333, and I reached two nonconsecutive months of total work to complete this project.

I hope this response clarifies things. 😁

Hey Pablo,
I like the work you are doing. You are picking up a lot of things and deliver good work. I'm also fine with paying tips for these kind of work as it is done. However, I'm personally not a fan to come up later and requesting a tip based on some hourly rate for open source work. You have done this work as open source work and then requesting funding afterward feels weird. I would encourage you to go to the Rust OG bounty for example. There we can agree on the work and payment before and not trying to request it afterwards. 

Hi [@bkchr](13fvj4bNfrTo8oW6U8525soRp6vhjAFLum6XBdtqq9yP22E7-polkadot)!

Thanks for this great piece of feedback. I know it might feel weird, especially considering the work is done and it's likely to be a bit late to go to the bounty.

To be fully honest, I wasn't aware of the Rust OG Bounty in the first place; otherwise, I'd definitely have gone there, had I known about it. Also, when I started working on this project, I hadn't dimensioned the magnitude this project took as well, so I couldn't plan accordingly to request beforehand.

This aligns with my previous mention that this request should be a one-time thing, as I have future projects in mind (such as extending the refactor of the deposits system to assets) that would benefit the ecosystem with improved usability. Now, I know where to start in the first place to help fund them (if needed).

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **second** vote on this proposal is **AYE**.

The **Big Tipper** track requires **35% participation and simple majority of non-abstain votes** according to our [voting policy v0.2](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **four aye and zero nay** votes from **ten available members**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The voters expressed unanimous support for the referendum, viewing it as a valuable contribution to enhance existing fellowship salaries. They believed that the proposed compensation was reasonable and justified, considering the significance and scope of the work involved. Overall, the comments reflected a consensus that supporting individual contributors through this initiative was a sensible and fair approach.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmQj5dJJ9m85m989TM1ewaB2RNBdbLst1q2AvCX51uZCbb).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

PolkaWorld votes AYE

PolkaWorld supports retroactive funding proposals — and this one is well-justified. The requested compensation of $50/hour is reasonable, and all the work has already been delivered and integrated. It’s a proposal worth supporting.

We are aligned in our assessment:
	•	The requested amount is fair and reflects the actual development workload and market standards.
	•	The relevant features have been completed and deployed, providing real utility.
	•	These improvements will enhance the user experience and asset usability on Asset Hub / Polkadot Hub, contributing to the growth of the ecosystem.

You can view the full feedback [[here](https://southern-manicure-6ee.notion.site/1657-Retroactive-Tip-for-Assets-related-Contributions-to-Polkadot-SDK-in-the-past-12-months-22ca3c644fba805487a2d42108a488b6?source=copy_link)].

| | |
|:--------- | :------------------------------------------------- |
| Proponent | `12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR` |
| Date | 6/07/2025 |
| Amount | `7,575.654 USDT` |

I'm requesting a one-time retroactive tip to cover the costs for implementing several contributions that enable broader usage beyond transfers (locking, covering deposits) for assets in Asset Hub/Polkadot Hub. These contributions are either already released or in the process of being merged for further release.

## Motivation

In the last year, I made three major contributions to the Polkadot SDK, which impact the user experience of Asset Hub/Polkadot Hub.

- [#3951] (_already released_): 
 - Provides basic support for _freezes_ (_locks_) using assets in the Asset Hub. This enables the possibility, among others, of vesting assets ([#7404]).
- [#4530] (_already released_): 
 - Provides basic support for holds (deposits) using assets in the Asset Hub. This is connected to an upcoming project to determine which asset to use for paying deposits (utilising a conversion model) when signing a transaction, or even paying for deposits using stablecoins or ETH across the bridge.
 - Refactors the balances model (the way balances are calculated) for asset accounts to be in line with the way native token balances are calculated.
- [#7404] (_in final review_): Brings `pallet-vesting` to assets, so people can make vested transfers of (among others) stablecoins or tokens in Asset Hub. Made possible by [#3951].

In total, the measured amount for these contributions (measured in time spent, with a fixed hourly rate) exceeds the already compensated amount.

## Cost Breakdown

Measured amount: `$9,800` (with a rate of `$50/h`).

- Time spent in the three projects: `196h` (`~1.84 mo`)


Already compensated amount: `$2,224.346`

- 2 months of Fellowship salary: `$1,666.666`.
- Tip for [#3951]: `$557.68` (`80 DOT` at `$6.971/DOT` — EMA 7).

Remaining amount: `$7,575.654`



[#3951]: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/3951
[#4530]: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/4530
[#7404]: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/7404

- A developer contributed to Polkadot SDK, improving Asset Hub features.  
- Added support for freezing assets (like locks) and handling deposits.  
- Made balance calculations for assets match native tokens.  
- Working on vested transfers for stablecoins.  
- Spent 196 hours (about 1.84 months) on these projects.  
- Already received $2,224.34 in compensation.  
- Requests $7,575.65 to cover remaining work costs.  
- Contributions help users manage assets better.


Proponent	`12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR`
Date	6/07/2025
Amount	`7,575.654 USDT`

#162·Retroactive Tip for Assets-related Contributions to Polkadot SDK in the past 12 months

Motivation

Cost Breakdown