Polkadot x MotoGP Partnership & Integration Proposal

At today's prices, this is asking for ~ 22.7 million US dollars' worth of DOT. It's around 25% of all DOT controlled by the Treasury. This is simply asking for too much, especially as a one-time Treasury Proposal.

I’m voting NAY on the Polkadot × MotoGP proposal, and I encourage others in the community to take a closer look before committing to such a large, long-term financial outlay.

Let’s start with the obvious: this is an unprecedented ask — **OVER $22 MILLION IN DOT **— from a partner who has no prior ties to the Polkadot ecosystem, and whose track record with blockchain ventures is questionable at best. This is their very first proposal, yet they’re asking for nearly 10% of the treasury. We shouldn’t be naive about it.

Even more troubling, the proposal conveniently omits MotoGP’s prior blockchain initiatives — particularly the MotoGP Ignition platform built on Flow. That project was their first real blockchain experiment, featuring NFTs, gamified racing experiences, and token integration via REVV. While it had some initial success during the 2021 NFT boom, it fizzled out — and yet, there is not one single mention of it in this proposal. If this were a credible proposal, we’d expect a detailed postmortem of Ignition, lessons learned, and an honest rationale for why Polkadot is their next attempt. Instead, we get an infomercial — flashy metrics and famous names, but zero historical accountability. Unfortunately, that context is entirely missing here.

Let’s not forget the CryptoDATA fiasco, either. MotoGP partnered with a blockchain company that went from sponsor to team owner in a matter of months, only to crash and burn under financial mismanagement and internal conflict. MotoGP had to eject the entire team from the 2024 season to save face. That was a reputational disaster; one they should be eager to explain and learn from. But again: radio silence in this proposal.

Let’s be real — the blockchain industry is littered with flashy, overpriced sponsorships that failed to drive meaningful adoption. Terra’s $38M deal with the Washington Nationals. Crypto.com’s $700M arena rebranding. F1 Delta Time shutting down. NEAR’s cricket partnership barely moved the needle. It’s branding without substance. If the goal is to onboard users, this is the least cost-effective way to do it.

The truth is this: if this partnership had merit, the proposers would’ve asked for a pilot-sized budget — something reasonable, say €500K–€1M — to build and test the fan platform, roll out an initial NFT marketplace, and prove they can deliver. Instead, they want three years of guaranteed treasury payments upfront, without showing us even a single user metric or demo. That’s reckless.

These omissions don’t necessarily disqualify the proposal, but they raise important questions about due diligence, transparency, and long-term alignment.

What’s worse is the lack of measurable KPIs. We’re told we’ll get “global brand awareness” and access to 514M fans — but how exactly are you measuring ROI? What are the adoption metrics? Where is the performance-based funding structure? You’re asking for DAO funding but treating this like a pitch to a centralized VC.

If we approve this, we set a dangerous precedent — that any big brand can show up, name-drop celebrities, hide its past failures, and walk away with millions of dollars in public funds. That is not how a responsible, decentralized treasury should function.

So no, this is not “bold.” It’s not “visionary.” It’s not “strategic.” It’s a bloated, opaque, and unaccountable proposal that undermines the legitimacy of OpenGov and the long-term health of the Polkadot ecosystem. We have better ways to spend $22 million — on builders, real adoption, and community-driven tools. Until MotoGP shows that it can be a trustworthy and transparent partner, they deserve a clear and unequivocal NAY.

This type of cooperation should be more about Polkadot providing products and technology to empower them. They should provide web2 brand and traffic, and Polkadot should charge at least not spend money. This is the attitude of cooperation

Upon review, the LV DAO is deeply intrigued by the conceptual direction of this proposal.

To better understand the intellectual foundations behind this $23,373,469.17 USD investment request, we must ask:

What are you smoking? Whatever it is, it appears to be remarkably potent. Congratulations. 👍

Thanks in advance.