Continuation Operations for 1 year - Spanish BD Team, now IBERLABS

Hi there.
Thank you for your proposal. I have a couple of questions:

1. Deepen collaboration with existing partners such as Onyze, KPMG, Telefónica, Governments and academic institutions.

• Can you please tell me more about existing partners and what the deal flow is with them right now?

2. Real-World Asset Tokenization (tokenized debt, equity, real estate)

• Tokenising debt and equity is not easy. Is there anyone you have in mind? Which country or jurisdiction that might to be? Spain?
• Tokenising real estate is even harder with the lack of liquidity, fragmentation, and legal work.

3. Xhype - Integrated direct registration with SubWallet and exclusive USDx on-ramp for Polkadot AssetHub.

• What is the impact on DOT ecosystem?

Business Development
Responsible for identifying leads, managing partnerships, and developing strategies for ecosystem growth.
This salary also covers travel costs for attending conferences, workshops, and in-person meetings around Spain or Andorra

Do you want to focus only on Spain or Andorra or you would like to find BD partners outside of that eco?

I guess I saw you at Crypto Expo in Bucharest at the Polkadot booth with TheWhiteRabbit and the WUD team.

Hey, based on your current proposal, our internal vote result is NAY, as we were unable to get clear answers to several important points:

1. When was the last grant received, and what were the deliverables? Have all of them been completed?Among the listed outcomes, while the “Xhype” project is noted to have integrated with Polkadot AssetHub and SubWallet, it’s unclear what direct impact this integration has had on DOT network activity, address growth, or actual asset movement.

2. What are the measurable goals for this round? While key metrics are listed (e.g., 2 government or enterprise integrations, 4 project integrations, etc.), it would help to further clarify what qualifies as a “successful” outcome. For example: does “integration” mean just a PoC, or does it require full deployment? Should it include user growth or fund inflow? It would also be helpful to have historical context — how many leads were converted last year? Are this year’s targets reasonably ambitious?

3. Regarding the goal of attracting at least 10 new developers — does this refer to 10 individual developers, or 10 development teams?

4. In the user growth section, it mentions “significantly increasing the number of active Polkadot users through integrations, dApps, or service launches.” Could you clarify what is considered “significant”? What’s the expected magnitude?

5. Similarly, in terms of new DOT holders — how many new holders are you aiming to onboard?

6. Lastly, would you be open to milestone-based funding? For example, receiving the second half of the funding only upon successful delivery of the key results.

We hope the above questions can be addressed — we’ll continue to follow this proposal closely!

First, I’d like to clarify something important. As a Decentralized Voice (DV), our responsibility is to uphold our governance principles while helping proposers make the most of the treasury — and at the same time, to do our best to ensure that treasury funds are truly used for the most impactful and necessary initiatives, so that the community can thrive long-term.

That does not mean we are here to oppose proposals for the sake of it, or that we hold any bias against specific teams. A rejection is not a dismissal of your team’s value — rather, it’s a request for a stronger foundation and a better start.

Regarding your proposal, I feel that several concerns we raised earlier have not yet been fully addressed. Let me summarize them again here:

1.Previous deliverables are described too briefly, making it difficult to understand the level of effort involved or evaluate the actual work that went into them.Additionally, it would be helpful if you could clarify the following point: We noticed that 31 outcomes were mentioned in the report , but this proposal only focuses on advancing 2 + 4 of them (could you specify which 6 exactly?). Why were the others not continued or prioritized in this proposal?

2.Please clarify whether these two goals — are expected to come from the 31 previously listed projects, or from newly sourced leads.

Additionally, when identifying such leads, what criteria do you use to determine whether a project can “significantly increase active Polkadot users” or “bring in new DOT holders”? In your view, what qualifies as a meaningful lead in this context? Are you targeting government-level partnerships, mid-sized enterprises, or Web3-native projects with hundreds of thousands or millions of users?

3.You’ve mentioned that two government projects are progressing from PoC to MVP, and that four others are already in the MVP stage. So for this proposal, what is your team’s concrete role? Since you noted that Braille is handling delivery management, it’s unclear to the community why further resources are needed from your team.

4. Given that some partnerships — such as Xhype and MoraBanc — have already been established but have received limited attention within the ecosystem, may I ask if your team’s responsibilities also include supporting the next steps for these projects? For example, helping them gain more visibility or driving media exposure and growth?

If so, could you please elaborate on how you plan to approach this?

What we’re advocating for is simple: we encourage all proposers to communicate with clarity and transparency. In a decentralized community like ours, contributions matter — but so does how you commit to those contributions. Especially now, when our treasury still lacks strong accountability mechanisms.

Apologies for the number of questions — We are just trying to fully understand and engage constructively.

Thank you @polkaworld for your thorough analysis. I’ll address each point as clearly as possible:

1 Previous deliverables are described too briefly, making it difficult to understand the level of effort involved or evaluate the actual work that went into them.Additionally, it would be helpful if you could clarify the following point: We noticed that 31 outcomes were mentioned, but this proposal only focuses on advancing 2 + 4 of them (could you specify which 6 exactly?).

Why were the others not continued or prioritized in this proposal?

The 31 outcomes represent a strategic and diverse pipeline, built with great effort. None of them have been abandoned, they are simply in different stages of maturity and require ongoing work. Clear examples of how these leads can evolve include Xhype, MoraBanc, and the Government of Andorra , all of which were originally part of that pipeline.

To clarify: in this new proposal, it’s not that we’re focusing only on 6 , it’s that we are committing to deliver at least 6 concrete results: 2 government PoCs and 4 integrations or MVPs. This is a new objective, not a continuation of something already in motion, and it reflects our intent to deliver measurable results with this new proposal.

In parallel, we’re still actively working on other leads from the previous pipeline that are maturing, such as Telefónica and Bit2Me.

2 Please clarify whether these two goals —

User Base Growth (“Find and support a lead that significantly increases active Polkadot users via integrations, dApps, or service launches”) and New DOT Holders (“Generate a lead that results in new DOT token holders, supporting wider token distribution and ecosystem growth”) are expected to come from the 31 previously listed projects, or from newly sourced leads.

Additionally, when identifying such leads, what criteria do you use to determine whether a project can “significantly increase active Polkadot users” or “bring in new DOT holders”? In your view, what qualifies as a meaningful lead in this context? Are you targeting government-level partnerships, mid-sized enterprises, or Web3-native projects with hundreds of thousands or millions of users?

These goals are driven by both our previous pipeline and newly sourced leads. We don’t limit ourselves to the original 31 — we’re constantly identifying new opportunities.

A valuable lead, for us, is one that meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Brings in users from outside the current Polkadot ecosystem.
2. Has the potential to scale significantly, either through user activity or capital.
3. Can be integrated effectively and natively into the Polkadot stack.

Examples (not promises of outcome, just illustrations of the type of impact we target):

1. MoraBanc: potential to bring institutional capital from outside the ecosystem, locked through DOT staking, thereby securing the network.
2. Xhype: targeting Web3 users incentivizing stablecoin use (USDT/USDC).
3. Kunveno: a dApp with native integration that solves a real-world problem, aligned with Polkadot’s decentralization values.
4. Bit2Me / Telefónica: expected to attract both retail and institutional users&capital outside our community

We don't only prioritize leads that bring users or capital — we also value those that strengthen Polkadot structurally by attracting developers or building foundational infrastructure.

With the launch of PolkadotHub, we’ll further support verticals like RWA, DePIN, and gaming, where we already have promising leads in the pipeline.

3 You’ve mentioned that two government projects are progressing from PoC to MVP, and that four others are already in the MVP stage. So for this proposal, what is your team’s concrete role? Since you noted that Braille is handling delivery management, it’s unclear to the community why further resources are needed from your team.

There has been an important misunderstanding here. Braille is not handling project delivery. Their role is limited to cross-functional support, including:

1. Compliance
2. Community communications
3. Transparency reporting

They’re contracted to help organize and report on our work, and keep the community informed. All execution, lead generation, and strategic follow-up remain under our team’s full responsibility. There is no overlap — only complementary collaboration that increases accountability and efficiency.

Also, to clarify: we never claimed that two government PoCs are already active. What we have consistently said is that there’s institutional willingness, and dialogue is already open. Our commitment in this proposal is to generate at least 2 new government PoCs and work toward converting them into MVPs.

The same applies to the 4 MVPs/integrations — they are new objectives in this proposal, not continuations from the previous one.

4 Given that some partnerships — such as Xhype and MoraBanc — have already been established but have received limited attention within the ecosystem, may I ask if your team’s responsibilities also include supporting the next steps for these projects? For example, helping them gain more visibility or driving media exposure and growth? If so, could you please elaborate on how you plan to approach this?

Yes, follow-up is absolutely part of our role.

With Xhype, we are already active:

1. We've submitted a proposal through MB to offer fee benefits to their card users who use AssetHub, aiming to onboard at least half of their 4,000 current card users, with estimated $1M monthly volume.
2. The current integration enables top-ups via Xkode, and we’re now locking to include AH on their V3, which will offer white-label cards to other projects with AssetHub as a no-fee load option (alongside BSC and TON). Each new white-label integration could exponentially increase AssetHub usage.

With MoraBanc, the product is not yet officially launched. Once live, initial marketing will be handled by them. Our role is to **secure the model's replication in other jurisdictions ( Spian through BBVA or Luxembourg ) ** such as (fund, ETF, C/N/P formats). Discussions are already open, and progress depends on the fund’s first-year performance.

Importantly: neither Xhype nor MoraBanc are designed to attract attention within the existing Polkadot community.

1. MoraBanc targets new institutional capital from outside the ecosystem, to be locked in staking.
2. Xhype targets new Web3 users, incentivizing stablecoin activity on AssetHub (USDC/USDT).

For the existing community, we’ll have DotPayApp — a native app for Polkadot users, designed to engage both current and new participants.

What we’re advocating for is simple: we encourage all proposers to communicate with clarity and transparency. In a decentralized community like ours, contributions matter — but so does how you commit to those contributions. Especially now, when our treasury still lacks strong accountability mechanisms.

We are fully aligned with this principle. That’s why:

1. We’ve structured this proposal with clear, measurable commitments: 2 government PoCs and 4 integrations/MVPs, brings at least 10 new developers , Event Participation.
2. We’ve brought in Braille specifically to support transparent and continuous communication with the community.
3. We commit to delivering detailed progress reports with KPIs and regular tracking of each project’s status.
4. 
   

Thanks again for this constructive dialogue. We are fully open to refining any aspect needed to build trust and ensure the best possible impact for the treasury.

Hello @polkaworld , here the questions one by one:

1. You mentioned that “the 31 outcomes represent a strategic and diverse pipeline built with great effort. None of them have been abandoned — they’re simply at different stages of maturity and still being actively pursued.”

Could you please clarify whether this ongoing work is included in the current proposal?

• Yes, absolutely, this ongoing work is included as work that we have to do, as well as the generation of new leads.
• In fact, I’ve emphasized multiple times that once we delivered these 31 leads, our team voluntarily continued to nurture and advance them.
• This was done to ensure that Polkadot would not leave a bad impression with any of the prospects and to demonstrate our long-term commitment.
• As a result, many of these leads have matured significantly, and some have already progressed into deliverables.

2. In the proposal, you highlight that projects like Xhype, Kunveno, and the Andorran Sandbox are still “in progress.”

Does this mean these ongoing projects are not counted among the 2 government or enterprise integrations and 4 new project integrations you committed to deliver?

• Correct — those ongoing initiatives are not included in the “2 integrations + 4 new projects” commitment.
• These targets refer specifically to new projects that are not part of the previously reported 31.
• The two upcoming PoCs are planned to emerge from our existing relationship with the Government of Andorra.
• These PoCs will focus on:
  • Verifiable Academic Credentials
  • Public Grant & Contract Traceability

Clarification:
Our current agreement with the Government of Andorra is focused on providing technical and research support for projects in their regulatory sandbox and exploring Web3 solutions. However, the two PoCs we now aim to deliver go beyond that — they are intended as full-fledged solutions that, if successful, will be integrated into the government’s internal workflows.

This marks a clear distinction between:

• The existing general collaboration, and
• The two specific PoCs outlined in this proposal.

3. In your response to Question 4, you mentioned that follow-up work on projects like Xhype and MoraBanc is fully within your team’s scope of responsibility.

However, this responsibility does not appear to be explicitly outlined in the current proposal. Could you clarify whether this follow-up work is part of the deliverables covered by the requested budget?

• Yes, this follow-up work is fully part of our responsibilities and is an essential component of any effective business development process.
• Creating leads, nurturing them, closing deals, and following up is how we generate sustainable adoption.
• That said, Xhype and MoraBanc are not included in the list of new deliverables in the current proposal.
• However, the follow-up work is ongoing and is covered by the budget of this proposal.

The Summary of this proposal is focused on:

• Advancing the maturity of existing leads
• Delivering 2 new government PoCs (from the Andorra relationship, but targeting new internal integrations)
• Delivering 4 MVPs or integrations from new projects not included in the previous 31
• Onboarding 10 new developers
• Participating in key events as listed
• Continuing to generate new leads

Regarding your overall feedback on clarity:

• I agree and appreciate the suggestion.
• I will include a table that clearly shows the status of all 31 projects — whether they are active, paused, or progressing toward implementation.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first 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 v0.2, and any referendum in which the majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received five aye and zero nay votes from nine available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The majority of voters expressed strong support for the proposal, praising its organization and alignment with previous activities. They acknowledged the team's hard work and responsiveness to community feedback, highlighting their significant contributions to the ecosystem. Some voters emphasized the importance of continued collaboration and expressed a desire for the team to remain active in future initiatives. One voter chose to abstain, citing a lack of sufficient information to evaluate the proposal but expressed trust in the judgment of those in favor.

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