- Polkassembly/
- #3118/
THE CONTINUATION: When Decentralization Meets Negligence: A Narrative of Mismanaged Funds in the Polkadot Ecosystem in Brazil
THEY ARE SILENCED ME, my previous post on Polkassembly has been deleted and my forum account has been silenced.
These questions are not attacks, they are legitimate demands for accountability.
Instead of honest and civil dialogue, it is sad that people opt for intimidation and evasive narratives. But I will not be silenced, even if bad actors try to take down my posts and messages. I have much more information and revelations to make. The list is endless.
I reiterate: I did not mention names or make personal attacks. Everything was discussed in governance spaces. My observations are personal, based on public data, with no institutional ties.
I have been following the comments and I regret that most of the simple and objective questions remain without clear answers.
Thank you for clarifying to the community the attempt to insert themselves into an agenda that runs through more than 20 universities and technology hubs in Brazil. This would cost only US$20,000 (not subsidized by Polkadot), while others, with US$620,000 and more than a year of operation, are unable to deliver.
Know that this project was only possible thanks to experience, transparency, respect for the Brazilian ecosystem and commitment to real deliveries.
The proof that plurality was prioritized and that the invitation was made is very clear and is here. 📎 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ygdtCpCI5_4Ibd7X2i-ZzC-QP1QVIYYN/view
I declare that in the absence of transparency and professionalism, I will never administratively associate myself with the portfolios of the proponents of these projects, regardless of titles, letters issued, or intimidation.
Executives must act seriously. These responses of almost 8,000 words with incomplete and inconsistent data turn what should be a clarification dialogue into something expensive and tiring. This is disrespectful to the community that subsidized all these initiatives. I would like to remind you that the treasury funds are public and belong to ALL DOT holders.
I regret that most of the simple and objective questions remain without clear answers.
The forum exists for dialogue, results, and good governance. It is worrying to see subsidized “educators” ignoring basic community principles and clearly demonstrating that they do not even understand how the Polkadot ecosystem works. This raises a serious warning: how are these developers being trained if those who should guide the process are unaware of the most essential fundamentals?
Still regarding the training program for developers, in phase 1 of the project, according to data contained in the report provided for the continuation of phase 2, it caught my attention that the report presented also does not present invoices or payment or transfer links relating to payments made during phase 1 of the project.
📎 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BXLbUEqhQC_oetaZ9ROoNb0tVe2cxMlk/view
zero payment reports, zero transfer links, zero invoices. This makes it impossible to provide accounts in the form of a "report". Furthermore, in relation to the payment of USD 6,000, a bank invoice was presented without identification of the payer, which makes verification impossible and causes the issue to remain inconclusive.
There is also no precision regarding the disclosure of information, sometimes it is said to train 100 developers, sometimes it is said to train 500, according to information provided in another subsidy request made on the Cardano network.
Note: The grant application reports the training of 500 developers for Polkadot as a success story.
The report also does not explain how the community will be able to find these developers, something important to consider even if they have already been hired before the network projects have had a chance to meet them. Will the BD Brasil team also need to be consulted in addition to meetups when the community needs these developers? The person who submitted this proposal should be here answering these questions, but they prefer to hide behind likes and comments from people who have not even signed the portfolio contemplated for this program.
There was also no justification for the hotel invoice, nor for the use of Invoice Maker, nor for the absence of original invoices issued by Brazilian tax or financial entities. Please note that the use of this tool does not replace a valid invoice and, finally, the answer regarding the number of accommodations contracted remains much more unclear. Here, they claimed to have contracted 3 accommodations for 5 nights, but the invoice only states two accommodations. This is yet another question with inconclusive answers.
The real impact of the more than US$620 thousand entrusted in its proposals also remains open.
Personal attacks and evasive responses will not silence me.
In any case, I appreciate the minimal detail provided about how you operate.
It is up to the community to assess whether these practices and omissions are consistent with the standards of transparency and governance expected by Polkadot, because in Brazil, your reputation is completely ruined.
Good luck!