PolkaWorld Ops and Maintenance proposal:2025.4 - 2026.3

Medium Spender
2d 14hrs ago
28 Comments
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
266.65KUSDT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation4d
Attempts
0
Tally
76.7%Aye
23.3%Nay
Aye
46.7MDOT
Nay
14.18MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support0.98%
15.13MDOT
Issuance
1.55BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

IDK why they put their proposal behind a Google form that makes you request access. Here is a copy of it for anyone who would like to view it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VVGIKr0DWQsrtlTDDPRdvRhX3YsM3lMvJ82X6pbcGEE/edit?usp=sharing
image.png

Reply
Up 1

This proposal is really concerning, with all due respect to your work. I lay down my concerns below:

**1. Salary/Task Double-Counting - **
The proposal allocates $22k/month for both:
Salaries (5 full-time roles at $3.4k-$4.1k/month each)
Deliverables (24 articles, 4 videos, 6 livestreams/month)

This creates redundancy. Why are so many people being paid salary while also getting others to write articles and pay for them? Salaries should inherently cover labor costs for these outputs. The current structure effectively charges twice: once for staff time, and again for deliverables they produce during paid work hours.

2. High Per-Unit Costs
Articles: $925/article ($22k ÷ 24) vs. standard Chinese market rates:
Freelance writers: $100-$300/article (Upwork, Fiverr)
Professional agencies: $300-$500/article (ChainNews, BlockBeats)
Video Editing: $868/video ($3.4k ÷ 4) vs. typical rates:
Basic editing: $50-$150/video (Taobao freelancers)
Premium editing: $200-$400/video (Bilibili creators)
**
3. Unjustified "Media Distribution" Costs
**
$8.3k/month allocated without:
Proof of third-party partnerships
Performance metrics for external platforms

I would appreciate if someone did a competitive study about the value PolkaWorld is providing from a media perspective to the ecosystem and compare it with other chinese platforms like ChainNews, BlockBeats etc...

The PolkaWorld proposal exhibits systemic financial mismanagement and questionable value delivery.


I took the time to look through the March report and here are some observations:

March 2025 Performance Shortfalls

  1. Underwhelming Engagement
    Articles: 26 articles → 25,533 total views (~982/article)
    Top article: 7,512 views (29% of total monthly traffic)
    72% of articles received <1,000 views despite $925/article cost.

  2. Video ROI Failure
    4 educational videos: 4,403 total views (~1,101/video)
    Cost: $3.4k/month for editing/uploading → $0.77/view

  3. Social Media Decline
    English X:
    Impressions ↓33% | Engagements ↓19%
    Relies heavily on 1.2K verified followers (7.8% of total)

Chinese X:
Engagement rate ↓3.6% despite** "quality over quantity" claims**

Vote "No" to uphold responsible treasury spends. Please

Reply
Up 1

Please take a careful look at our proposal and make the appropriate calculations. Thank you!

Reply
Up

Polkaworld has been a leading voice when it comes to community building and media in China and beyond. Their content is informative and timely and brings in a variety of different voices. I think a big problem of Polkadot in the past has been that media spending has been too focused on one single outlet. Rather, alternative Polkadot-native media outlets should be embraced wholeheartedly. Having a native Chinese outlet is incredibly important, given that this is arguably the country with the biggest developer community which we need to reach if Polkadot is to be successful in the long term. And while Polkaworld is a leading voice in the Chinese market, it should no longer be considered restricted to this jurisdiction, as the wealth of new English language content has shown.

Edited

Reply
Up 1

Polkaworld is undoubtedly the largest and most influential Polkadot community in China. Before 2024, it focused on producing Chinese content and media, with most Chinese media citing Polkaworld's content as the official information source. However, as Web3 information sources gradually migrate to X (formerly Twitter), Polkaworld will also place greater emphasis on developing X content after 2024. It will simultaneously produce content in both Chinese and English and gradually gain more attention and influence in English content. A lot of progress has been made.

I support this proposal and hope to collaborate with Polkaworld to amplify the voices of DOT holders in Asia and enable them to participate in OpenGov discussions, proposals, and voting.

Reply
Up

@Max_HIC

Ah, the classic ‘But China is expensive now!’ deflection. Let’s clarify:

Geography ≠ Argument: My critique isn’t about East vs. West salaries, it’s about PolkaWorld vs. ChainNews/BlockBeats rates in the same region. If PolkaWorld’s "quality" costs 3x competitors, show us the receipts (or the 3x ROI).

Monopoly Math: "No alternatives" ≠ justification. If PolkaWorld’s been the only option for years, maybe it’s time to ask: Why? Healthy ecosystems thrive on competition, not loyalty programs.

Transparency Theatre: For $266k/year, we deserve more than "trust us, we’re quality" especially when March’s top article had 7.5k views (roughly $123/view). Even Netflix gives us watch-time metrics.

Keep calm and compare apples to apples. 🍎🔪🍏

Reply
Up

We've been working with the Polkaworld team for the last 3 years. They are one of the early supporters of Polkadot and have greatly helped raise awareness of Polkadot in the Chinese and APAC markets. I fully support the Polkaworld team with this proposal. Ryan | SubWallet

Edited

Reply
Up

I have concerns regarding the effectiveness of PolkaWorld’s marketing efforts. Based on available data, much of their output appears to focus primarily on translation work. While translation has value, it does not constitute a comprehensive marketing strategy.

It’s also worth noting that WeChat metrics can be easily inflated, making it difficult to assess true engagement. Despite several years of operation, their X

YouTube channels have shown minimal growth in terms of subscribers and viewership — which raises further questions about long-term impact.

Additionally, to my knowledge, the team is not exclusively dedicated to the Polkadot ecosystem and is also involved in operations for other networks. This may explain the size of the team, but it also suggests a lack of singular focus and long-term commitment to Polkadot’s growth.

Overall, the cost-to-impact ratio appears unfavorable. Given these concerns, I recommend voting NAY on this proposal.

Reply
Up
  1. It's not the largest community at all, not even a community at all. Because they haven't invested any time in operating the community

  2. Just for the sake of salary, so their quality is lower

  3. Just for Gavin's work, not the community, they focus on pleasing Gavin

  4. The core members are not focused on the Polkadot ecosystem, but also work for many other ecosystems

Given the above situation, this cost is too high
I suggest cutting the fees by 2/5 to match their work quality.

Reply
Up

When evaluating PolkaWorld’s contributions, assessing solely based on “content production cost” overlooks its unique and long-term value to the Polkadot ecosystem. While other Chinese blockchain media may offer broader distribution, they often lack PolkaWorld’s deep understanding of Polkadot’s technical roadmap and governance evolution.

PolkaWorld consistently produces high-quality content, closely follows developments like OpenGov and ecosystem updates, and offers meaningful exposure for projects. Notably, its monthly interviews are shaped by community input, creating a rare and valuable feedback loop between users and builders—something blockchain media cannot replicate.

In the Chinese-speaking community, PolkaWorld serves as a primary entry point for many DOT and KSM holders. It has built a strong, cohesive community and continues to be a trusted home for long-term supporters.

In my view, PolkaWorld plays a foundational role in ecosystem development and governance education. I sincerely urge the committee to consider its lasting impact and community influence beyond short-term marketing metrics 🙏
— Yuki Pan

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our second 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. This proposal has received six aye and one nay votes from ten members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters expressed strong support for Polkaworld, highlighting its significant role in the Chinese-speaking community and its efforts to enhance English content for broader engagement. Many praised its dedication and reasonable funding requests, emphasizing the importance of continued growth and development in the region. However, some raised concerns about transparency and the perceived overselling of their capabilities, leading to a few abstentions and a dissenting vote. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards endorsing Polkaworld's initiatives and contributions.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

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
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up