You should link to https://polkadot.subsquare.io/treasury/spends/79, showing that an approved treasury payout has expired. 

Dear Proposer,

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

The **Medium Spender** track requires **50% quorum and simple majority of non-abstain voters** 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 **five aye and zero nay** votes from **ten available members**, with **one member abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> In the referendum, most voters expressed support, citing the approval of a previous proposal as a key reason for their votes. One voter abstained, questioning the rationale behind revisiting the proposal a year later. While several supporters acknowledged concerns about the execution and relevance of the proposal, they ultimately favored it, indicating a sense of obligation to follow through on prior decisions. Overall, the sentiment reflected a mix of support and skepticism regarding the proposal's implementation.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmXMryPxJwK5pdwB2JVumoeLcpf2144Q3bYEqC4kS5b5L8).

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)

TL;DR

The payout for [Ref 703](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/703) expired before we could claim. This ref intends to rectify the payout that was originally approved under Ref. 703.

The preimage was pulled as an additional measure to prove that the payout was not disbursed.

**Q: Why was the payout not claimed?**

A: Due to an oversight on our part, we failed to track the timeline properly and missed the deadline to claim the payout.

**Q: What is the purpose of this proposal?**

A: Since the claim on our previously approved proposal has expired, we are currently unable to claim the originally approved funds. We are submitting this proposal to rectify this so that we may continue to deliver on the original proposal.

**Q: Are you still planning to fulfill the proposal?**

A: Absolutely, we executed in any case, and the Scalability Hackathon has been a big success.

**Q: Can you verify the payment address?**

A: Yes, the payment address is an Encode-controlled address, identical to the one used in the original proposal.

Your vote will accelerate the rectification of this payout previously approved. Thank you for the support! 🙏❤️

Full proposal here: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P-LiroEAL1Sdqum-vsHug1ab2lPFjETWOAoh6fNkLxg/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P-LiroEAL1Sdqum-vsHug1ab2lPFjETWOAoh6fNkLxg/edit?usp=sharing)

A proposal called Ref 703 was made to get money for a project, but the people who asked for the money missed the chance to get it. They made a new proposal to fix this problem and get the money they were supposed to get. They already did the project, which was a big success. They want to make sure they get the money they were promised, and they are asking for help to fix this mistake.

#154·Payout approved by Ref 703 expired - Encode Club