Proposal type: Foundation Resolution Proposal (no funding requested)
On-chain call: system.remark whose text begins with “[Polkadot Community Foundation]”
Track: Wish For Change
Nature: Signalling referendum, non-binding by design. A vote in favour constitutes the community mandate.
Subject: Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF), as recipient and administrator of community treasury funding (Refs #1082, #1573 and #1591)

1. Summary
This is a Foundation Resolution Proposal. It asks the PCF to deliver the public transparency, reporting and governance that the treasury has already funded, and to provide the outstanding roadmap, accounting and launch status for the Polkadot App. It requests no new funding. It asks only that the PCF honour commitments it was already paid to meet, and obligations already written into its own bylaws.
If these are not delivered within a defined window, this proposal asks that no further treasury funding be proposed by or approved for the PCF until the funded transparency obligations are met, and that the Polkadot App be handed over openly with any unspent balance returned to the treasury. This is a step within tokenholders’ documented rights. It does not seek to wind up the Foundation.
This is a request for accountability. It is not a criticism of the engineering work, which is real.

2. Background and facts
• The Polkadot App was first presented at Polkadot Decoded in 2024. It is developed by Novasama Technologies, with strategic and technical direction from Parity, published by the PCF, with the IP held by the PCF.
• Ref #1082 directed the PCF to own the IP and publish the app.
• Ref #1573 (Treasury Spend #152) directed approximately 1,029,730 USDT to the PCF, of which 748,800 USD (72.7%) was for software development allocated to Novasama and external contractors. The proposal itself described the project as behind schedule and declined to give a launch date.
• Ref #1591 (PCF Year 2 renewal) directed 632,000 USD to the PCF for one year of operations. Among its funded deliverables were a “centralized information hub,” a “public-facing dashboard or website dedicated to tracking all PCF-related proposals,” with “monthly updates on active and completed initiatives,” and the appointment of two tokenholder-designated directors, budgeted at 35,000 USD each.
• The PCF bylaws already require public transparency reports on its activities, including transactions, proposal status and ongoing efforts, on at least a quarterly basis.
• As of this proposal, roughly one year after Ref #1591: there is no public information hub and no visible record of the promised monthly updates; the two tokenholder-designated director seats appear unfilled per the public record; and for the Polkadot App there is no public roadmap, no published milestones, no financial reconciliation, and no launch date. The app is not available to general users.
• A direct request to the PCF for a public answer on these matters has, at the time of drafting, gone unanswered.

3. Primary requests
This proposal asks the PCF to publish the following in a single public, referenceable location (the Polkadot Forum and the PCF website or GitHub), within thirty (30) days of enactment:

A. Foundation transparency already funded or required
1. The information hub and monthly updates funded under Ref #1591. The public dashboard tracking all PCF-related proposals, with funding details, execution status and outcomes, and the monthly updates on active and completed initiatives that were an explicit deliverable of the Year 2 renewal.
2. The transparency reports required by the bylaws. The public reporting on transactions, proposal status and ongoing efforts that the PCF bylaws already require, on at least a quarterly basis, brought current.

B. The Polkadot App (Refs #1082 and #1573)
3. A full financial accounting. Total received, total spent, remaining unspent balance, and a breakdown by recipient and category (Novasama, external contractors, operations, marketing, legal, tooling), reconciled line by line against the approved budgets.
4. An official public roadmap. Concrete milestones and target dates for the v1 general-availability launch and each funded feature. Where a date is uncertain, state the dependency that blocks it.
5. The current launch status and a target date for general availability, on the shared understanding that dates may move provided the reasons are stated.

C. Governance
6. The two tokenholder-designated directors, or an explanation. Complete the appointment of the two community directors funded under #1591, or publish a clear account of why the seats remain unfilled a year after they were funded, and a date by which they will be.

4. Conditional requests, only if the above is not delivered
If the primary requests are not delivered within the thirty (30) day window, this proposal further asks the following, each within tokenholders’ documented rights and the PCF’s own rules:
1. Withhold further funding. No additional treasury funding, including any further renewal of PCF operations, should be proposed by the PCF or approved by governance until the funded transparency obligations above are met. The PCF’s own materials confirm that tokenholders may withhold future funding if they are unhappy with the Foundation.
2. Return of unspent funds. Consistent with the PCF rule that funds remaining after a project are returned to the treasury unless otherwise agreed in the initial proposal, the PCF should return any unspent balance associated with the Polkadot App, and any unspent balance from #1591, to the Polkadot treasury.
3. Open and orderly handover of the app. Should funded app development not continue, the PCF should publish the complete current source code under an open-source license on the PCF GitHub organisation, as already committed in #1573, provide a final financial accounting, and clarify the status of the IP and of any third-party agreements entered on the community’s behalf.
This proposal does not seek to wind up the Foundation itself. Its scope is the PCF’s funded transparency obligations and the Polkadot App.

5. Why this is actionable and within scope
Addressing in advance the grounds on which the directors may decline a proposal:
• Not vague: each item maps to a specific funded deliverable (the #1591 information hub, monthly updates and directors), an existing bylaw obligation (quarterly transparency reports), a prior commitment (open-sourcing the code, #1573), or a documented tokenholder right (withholding funding, return of unspent funds).
• No discretion required: it asks for reports, numbers, a roadmap, dates and appointments the PCF already committed to produce or already maintains.
• No funding requested: delivering reporting and appointments already paid for under #1591 needs no new budget. If the PCF believes additional overhead is required, it should state so publicly with a figure.
• Appropriately scoped: it concerns the PCF’s funded transparency obligations and one product, the Polkadot App, and does not touch the Foundation’s continued existence.

6. What this referendum does and does not do
• It is a signalling Wish for Change and a Foundation Resolution Proposal. It does not move funds on-chain. It establishes a clear, vote-backed mandate that the PCF, per its charter, reviews and, if actionable, executes.
• The binding levers remain ordinary governance: future treasury funding requires fresh approval, which can be withheld, and the return of unspent funds is already the PCF’s stated policy.
• The PCF can render the conditional section moot simply by delivering what it was already funded to deliver.

7. A note on the decision deposit and why your vote still matters
A Wish for Change requires a sizeable decision deposit to enter its decision phase. To be precise: that deposit is posted by whoever places the referendum into decision, not by the people voting, and it is returned at the end. Voting itself costs nothing beyond the transaction.
The size of that deposit, and the fact that a Wish for Change does not execute anything on-chain, should not discourage anyone from voting. The value of this referendum is not in what it forces, but in what it shows. A clear, public, on-chain tally cannot be quietly deferred or answered in a private inbox. Regardless of the deposit and the non-binding nature of the vote, every DOT holder is encouraged to vote, aye or nay. This is precisely the mechanism web3 was built around: the people who fund a network expressing their will openly, on-chain, without needing permission from the few who steer it. A community that shows up cannot be treated as an afterthought.

8. Enactment and good faith
The on-chain call is a system.remark whose text begins with “[Polkadot Community Foundation]” and references this document, submitted on the Wish For Change track, as required for Foundation Resolution Proposals. A request for a public response was sent to the PCF at [email protected] ahead of this proposal, in good faith, so that any concern about clarity or actionability could be addressed before the referendum opened. This proposal proceeds because that request produced no public answer.