Threshold
thanks for the proposal.
Is it possible to provide the KPI from what was delivered from the initial kick off funding via DF program?
Is their a reason this has not been funded again via. a strategic grant to ensure these deals outlined would be operational? if not, is it possible to share the feedback? Lastly, is their a reason why this is only a request for the PoKe Berlin Team - when I have seen that via https://www.northdata.com/BOTLabs%20GmbH,%20Berlin/Amtsgericht%20Charlottenburg%20(Berlin)%20HRB%20193450%20B that botlabs is in liquidation.
many thanks for your clairfications here.
Hello @BOTLabs,
In your proposal you list the following as one of your "achievements":
German Defense Industry Project: Resilient Identification System.
The discussion centered around how they could leverage Polkadot and blockchain technology to help the military to identify allies and adversaries on the battlefield. We presented a solution architecture which was well received and shared with them.
Additionally, there is the opportunity for funding a joint project through EU military research funds in the area of maritime communication, which have significant financial backing.
We feel that Polkadot should be involved in the currently very significant defence vertical.
First, thank you for your transparency in listing it in your proposal. However, I find it extraordinary that you believe the Polkadot treasury, the shared asset of every token holder regardless of their nation and background, should subsidize military projects for the EU or German armies, or any business development efforts related to them. Ethical and moral implications aside, any sane person can see the grim practical consequences here.
To flip the situation for perspective, would you be comfortable with a Chinese community member applying for treasury funds to support the Chinese army? Or the same applied to the US, Turkey, Brazil, Iran, Russia, Nigeria?
A very resounding nay from me. I have to say I'm disappointed to see this proposed in OpenGov. I believe that Polkadot cannot afford to compromise its position as a neutral, global common good.
Kind regards,
kukabi | Helikon
Edited
Given the current level of ambiguity in the proposal, PolkaWorld has decided to vote NAY. We would like to share our thoughts and raise the following questions, in the hope of receiving clarification from the team:
What is the difference between this treasury request and the previous Decentralized Futures (DF) funding? What were the specific deliverables outlined in the DF program? If certain details cannot be disclosed for now, perhaps a treasury proposal should only be submitted after all DF deliverables are fully completed and officially confirmed by the Web3 Foundation.
Could you please provide more concrete details regarding the most promising projects mentioned in the proposal? For instance, the proposal refers to a signed MoU with a large tech conglomerate operating in China and abroad, with its subsidiary planning to integrate with Polkadot in several areas. Could you specify which areas these integrations cover, how long this collaboration has been underway, and when implementation is expected? If some of the projects do not reach execution by the end of the proposed six months, will another extension be needed? What are the current challenges or reasons behind the delay?
How will the success of this six-month extension be measured? Are there clear indicators or outcomes that can help the community assess whether the deliverables have been met?
Will all eight of the high-potential projects listed in the proposal be handed over to the Polkadot community within six months? Could you also clarify which projects have already been handed over?
We are also concerned about the use of MoUs as a primary milestone for funding. Without clear deliverables or confirmed commitments from partners (in terms of funding, manpower, or co-development), MoUs should be regarded as possibilities rather than completed achievements. The treasury should be cautious of proposals that may appear overly packaged but lack substantial progress.
We hope to hear the team’s response on these points and will continue to closely follow the progress of this proposal.
Best regards,
PolkaWorld
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
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 four aye and four nay votes from nine available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Some voters expressed strong support, highlighting the team's contributions and advocating for improved transparency and clear metrics for future funding. Conversely, several others opposed the proposal, citing concerns about its vague wording, lack of transparency, and the appropriateness of using treasury resources for military-related projects. A few participants abstained, acknowledging the team's efforts but expressing worries about the lack of demonstrable progress and the risks involved in the funding request.
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
Edited
Well, this PoKe Berlin team’s proposal for a six-month extension is really a classic case of overreach disguised as progress. They claim to have identified verticals and built relationships across government and enterprise, but somehow that translates into a €253,000 request — mostly for salaries and travel — to keep doing “key accounting” and facilitating more handovers. Everything is masked under an NDA.. no KPIs nothing to show whatsoever.
One of their “main findings,” they proudly announce, is that “Polkadot remains relatively unknown outside the blockchain ecosystem.” Groundbreaking stuff. I can only imagine the sheer depth of research it took to land that revelation — something most of us figured out within five minutes of trying to explain DOT to a friend. And yet this "insight" is used to justify more time, more money, and more vague deliverables, all wrapped in buzzwords and hidden behind NDAs. They assure us they’ll continue involving the community… just, you know, not in any way that involves real information or decision-making unless you’re willing to sign a gag order. Community engagement, but make it exclusive.
And then, of course, there’s the dystopian kicker. **“The discussion centered around how they could leverage Polkadot and blockchain technology to help the military to identify allies and adversaries on the battlefield.” ** Something we saw KILT working on as well :D. Really? After failing to build sustainable, grassroots adoption, the fallback plan is… helping militaries pick who to shoot at more efficiently?
Web3 was supposed to be about liberation, not feeding surveillance states and weapons programs. It is one thing if the governments decide to use our tech, but another thing if WE go directly to the military with this pitch. Mass adoption >>>>> Mass destruction. Not exactly what most of us signed up for.