- Referenda/
- Big Spender/
- #1346/
Accelerate growth and adoption across the entire Polkadot ecosystem
- 0.0%
- 0.0%
- 0.0%
Threshold
Though my vote is tied to KusDAO which is currently NAY, I'm very much in support of this proposal.
My view is the service offered his is "Polkadot Interpreter" for the rest of the Industry. The unique structure of our ecosystem makes it difficult to fit into the "Standard" data that is presented on high-traffic dashboards.
This team with a strong track record with treasury, solid partner in Parity Data, and the technical expertise to run their own nodes - I believe - is perfect to act as Interpreter for us and share our story with the broader industry in terms they understand.
$1M definitely gives sticker shock by my current position is that this is a reasonable price to pay to solve a problem that has not only held us back but actually made Polkadot look MUCH WORSE than it is.
Voted nay. While I can see the value, the amount asked seems just way to high for what is offered.
Dear @Token Terminal,
Thank you for your proposal. Our vote on this proposal is NAY.
The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received two aye and four nay votes from ten members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The referendum received mixed feedback, with concerns centred on the proposal's high price tag. Supporters highlighted the value and enterprise awareness Token Terminal brings to Polkadot, though some suggested scaling back the scope or implementing milestones for better accountability. Opponents argued that other Polkadot-funded teams could deliver similar results at a more reasonable cost. One member abstained, citing a lack of information to make an informed decision. Overall, while the proposal’s value was recognised, its pricing and structure were significant points of contention.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Thank you for the proposal and the continuous engagement with Polkadot’s development. Based on our cohort 3 application, referenda in this range will also depend on the price of DOT and the impact on the treasury. The reason we do this is because with the passing of the inflation reduction and readjustment of treasury income referendum (1139), the expected scenario for the price of DOT was meant to be price increase. For such reason we have decided to wait until the referendum approval gets closer to its end to make a final decision so we get a better sense of what the price of DOT and value of stables are at that point in time. This depends also on other external factors such as amount of requested funds from other referenda, It is difficult to predict which referenda will pass but we certainly can have an estimate of the funds that are about to be spent measured in DOT, USD, funds currently requested as well of the funds that are already spent and in which category.
We should work around the estimated budget for the specific category at a specific DOT price and stables availability. The rationale for this is to not exceed the treasury income into a heavily negative outflow like what happened on 2024-Q2
In this particular case, we follow the Opengov watch categories:
https://www.opengov.watch/reports/treasury-reports/04_2024-treasury-report-q3
Development (As part of Software Services) as well as Outreach (Marketing):
• Marketing: media production, PR, advertising. In this case, through X and other venues.
• Software Services is 3rd party services that got funded by Polkadot.
as a mix of Software Services and marketing referendum 1346 needs to be included and compared with the other expenses and prospected expenditures of the category. Primarily, in our opinion, with the Development-Software services category that’s the main focus of the delivery.
Development expenses range within the 30% and 40%. As of today, the large referenda with significant expenditures within this category are the Fellowship expenses, Snowbridge and Wallets, which shouldn’t add significant extra burden to the budget and treasury in its current form. As for the stablecoin expenditure, USDT impact would be low as it corresponds to 10% of the current USDC treasury holdings and 5% of total stable holdings.
Remarks
As requested to other large outreach referenda, B2B activities, Business Development and the effective use of connections from business development parties with interested enterprise partners in the network of Token Terminal is crucial. Privately we have already mentioned this need so that the business development operations within Polkadot become functional. This has to come in addition to the already provided services of enterprise analytics that are provided by Token Terminal and data accuracy / diligence provided by Parity data. Shortly, we ask for a bridge with enterprise for our business development participants.
If this referendum were to fail, we would also suggest and echo what Helikon has commented on his PermanenceDAO’s vote, a 6 month period could be more manageable for voters as it would give the change for the treasury to accumulate stables and the DOT price to increase.
As published on our X account, we’ll maintain our ABSTAIN vote until January 2025 so we can see the trajectory of the price of DOT and better ascertain the impact on treasury holdings and more importantly to observe the effect of the cutting inflation strategy.
The value requested feels very very high. $740k for 6 FTEs feels like $120k per person. In which geographies are these roles hired? Do we have their profiles who will be leading this project?
Also, could you explain the node infrastructure? Why is it so expensive $1000 per node per month. Who is getting paid for this?
Lastly, you seem to have a pretty interesting business model. You are charging Token Terminal users money and are also charging polkadot ecosystem money to analyse its data. If polkadot’s data is getting analysed by your paid customers, shouldn’t you pass on some of those fees back to polka dot community ?
I do feel there is a big room to optimise the cost.
$1M is a substantial ask at this phase, especially for a startup focused on standardizing a data set. The proposed team structure — such as assigning two people per role at the onset — feels excessive and misaligned with the lean, resource-conscious approach typically expected in early-stage projects. A more streamlined structure could achieve the same goals efficiently, for example:
1x Data Lead (CTO): Define strategy and oversee the technical roadmap.
1x Data Engineer: Build and maintain the necessary data pipelines, sufficient for initial requirements.
1x Data Analyst: Validate, analyze, and derive insights from the data.
1x Site Reliability Engineer (optional): Manage infrastructure stability if necessary.
This leaner team ensures resources are allocated wisely while delivering measurable results. Overstaffing at this stage risks inflating costs without a proportional increase in output.
It’s important to highlight that only 1/4th of the proposed funding is allocated to infrastructure costs, meaning the vast majority of the request is intended to build out the team for your for-profit company. For context, in the startup world, early-stage or seed funding is typically focused on proving the concept, building a minimum viable product (MVP), and demonstrating market fit—often with a small, scrappy team working efficiently to achieve maximum impact. Budgets at this stage are usually lean and prioritized toward direct value creation.
In contrast, this proposal asks for a substantial allocation toward staffing multiple roles, many of which appear redundant for an early-stage project. Such an approach is unusual for a startup seeking initial funding, especially when using community resources. Given the lack of a proven track record or a clear roadmap for significantly advancing Polkadot or delivering tangible ecosystem benefits, this funding request seems premature and disproportionate.
Hiring and scaling should be done prudently, with the goal of achieving milestones that justify further investment. Allocating such a large portion of community funds to team building—before demonstrating measurable progress or validating the project’s usefulness—risks misusing resources without delivering results.
Given these concerns, a more cautious approach — such as reducing redundant positions and implementing phased funding tied to the proposed milestone achievements — would be more appropriate than requesting 100% upfront before any work is completed. This ensures accountability and provides the opportunity to demonstrate progress before committing additional community resources.
This feedback is shared with the hope of helping refine the proposal and increasing its chances of success while being mindful of the community's interests.