We cannot deny the importance of Polkassembly. However, as I mentioned on our call with Jas, I think the product quality of Polkassembly is suffering at the moment, and I think there's a consensus here in the community. I think this proposal should be divided in to smaller milestones, and the improvement of the product should be evaluated by the community after each milestone. I would love to see a revamped, redesigned, improved, bug-free Polkassembly, but I don't think a ~$1M advance payment is going to create the correct incentives for this necessary work. Another thing I'm having a hard time understanding is the price tag, which is probably around ~$250K higher than Subsquare, which is a superior product in my opinion. Nay, but only because I want a better Polkassembly.

I would rather see smaller, less ambigous proposals that first focus on improving Polkassembly. I think they're a crucial part of the ecosystem and should continue to be funded, but with smaller proposals that focus on it's role rather than trying to be a Swiss knife.

Abstain due to my role in subsquare, but I do hope PA can improve its usability and I believe healthy competition and collaboration can benefit both of PA and subsquare.

We recognize the importance of Polkassembly. We hope to see much improvement on the functionalities of the current website.

We think that the price tag should be similar of what gets Subsquare. On the other hand, we see the importance of Polkassembly as one of the OpenGov platform. With some changes, we can agree with some upcoming proposal, but this one is NAY from our side.