Threshold
We would like to take a moment to provide some background information to the community.
The Polkadot Ecological Research Institute was established following a suggestion from PolkaWorld.
Going back to 2020, we believed that Polkadot needed to cultivate more contributors in China, and the founder of the Polkadot Ecological Research Institute had, at an early stage, contributed by helping PolkaWorld compile the Polkadot Weekly Reports.
However, we would also like to clarify that PolkaWorld and the Polkadot Ecological Research Institute are two independent entities with separate operations.There has never been any other form of financial or interest relationship between the two.
Overall, based on our observations in China, the Polkadot Ecological Research Institute has indeed produced content that has sparked discussion and thought among Chinese-speaking users. They are particularly good at comparing Polkadot with other ecosystems, drawing lessons from different communities, and encouraging the Chinese community to explore how Polkadot can develop even better.
Turning to the current proposal, as one of the DVs (Decentralized Voices), PolkaWorld, in line with our long-held principles, would like to raise the following concerns and invite the team’s response:
⸻
The proposal mainly emphasizes unstructured metrics such as “influence,” “expanded reach,” and “shares,” while lacking clear and quantifiable deliverables. Although the reports appear voluminous, there are no well-defined KPIs or results-tracking mechanisms. Simply stating “how many words were written” does not necessarily reflect the true impact on the ecosystem. Providing some measurable outcomes would greatly help the community better understand your contributions.
The proposal mentions figures such as “63 million total reads,” “support for over 130 projects,” and “coverage of over 50,000 users,” but no verifiable links or statistical sources were provided. If these figures represent social media impressions, the methodology and data platforms used should be clearly stated.
If the numbers are based on website traffic or media platform analytics, third-party backend screenshots should be included for verification. Without supporting evidence, the credibility of these numbers remains uncertain.
While the proposal states that the team has been successfully funded by the Treasury eight times, it does not provide a clear review of the promises versus actual deliverables from those previous proposals.
For example: Were there any delays or uncompleted tasks? Without a thorough retrospective on prior performance, it would be difficult for the community to supervise another 12-month funding period effectively.
For example, the proposal states that the team will “produce no fewer than 3 original analysis reports on Polkadot or its ecosystem per month” and “produce 4 in-depth contents on Polkadot ecosystem development per month.” It would be helpful to clarify the distinction between these two types of content and specify what topics will be covered, so that the community can better understand the team’s areas of strength.
Additionally, the proposal mentions “participating in at least one online/offline discussion or event related to Polkadot or its ecosystem development per month.” Based on past reports, this task was not consistently completed as originally stated, and interviews were often used instead. While we acknowledge that interviews can be meaningful, it would be better to clearly define the nature of such activities when setting targets — for example, specifying “live events” if they are online sessions. This would make expectations clearer for the community. Overall, we believe that the task descriptions for the next year could benefit from greater specificity.
Conclusion
Given the concerns outlined above, PolkaWorld‘s first vote is NAY.
However, as we have always emphasized, a NAY does not represent a denial of your past contributions or a complete rejection of your work. Rather, it reflects our hope that with clearer deliverables, better-defined OKRs, and more measurable outcomes, you can continue to build trust and support within the community.
We look forward to seeing the team’s response and any adjustments to the proposal. We will continue to follow and pay attention to its progress.
Thank you so much for patiently addressing all of our questions!
We also appreciate that you have updated your OKRs based on our feedback — the new version indeed looks much clearer and more specific compared to before. Thank you again for your responsiveness!
Regarding the concern about potential data exaggeration, we would still recommend publishing statistics from your own operated platforms, as this would likely reflect the most accurate situation. Data from sources like 8btc in 2020 and 2021 feels quite distant now, and it’s widely understood that website traffic numbers can often be inflated. For example, PolkaWorld’s articles are also frequently syndicated across various media platforms, and if we were to collect all of those numbers, the results would be similarly exaggerated. However, we have always chosen to share only the data from our own channels (WeChat and X), without using inflated figures to attract attention.
All in all, we sincerely appreciate the significant adjustments you made to the proposal based on our suggestions. Although there are still some points that could be improved, the current proposal now presents a clear set of OKRs and a $20/hour rate, which we believe is a fairly reasonable budget.
After internal discussion within our team, we have decided that for the second round of voting, we will vote AYE to support more Chinese content. We hope you will continue bringing more original, insightful articles to the Chinese-speaking Polkadot community!
Edited
The research reports of Polkadot Eco Researcher have always been of great depth, and have provided a lot of effective suggestions for Polkadot.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is ABSTAIN.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum and simple majority of non-abstain voters according to our voting policy v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received one aye and two nay votes from nine available members, with six members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The voters predominantly abstained from the referendum, expressing uncertainty about the effectiveness of past promotional efforts and the need for measurable outcomes in terms of builder engagement within the Polkadot ecosystem. While some acknowledged the importance of the Chinese community and the work done by the Polkadot Ecology Research team, they emphasized the necessity for clearer results and tangible impacts. A couple of voters opposed the proposal, citing concerns over upfront payment structures and limited visibility of the group's influence. Overall, there was a call for more substantial evidence of growth and community support.
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
You gotta be kidding me!