Hi,

How much has the Web3 Foundation already invested in this project?

What justifies the $748,000 USDT requested for development when most of the features have already been developed? The application looks very much like a simplified version of Nova Wallet.

why is the marketing budget so low?
is there a separate marketing budget?
do we really want to market an app that cost almost $1M with just $54,000?

what is the logic of this?

the app will most likely fail. there isnt anything new or exciting in there. the giftcard part is extremly outdated. I just dont see anybody ever using this over a proper wallet solution. Ask the web3f or Parity for money and leave the treasury alone, still better then having to fund you guys for eternity. Certainly not worth a million usd for 6 months. I am not surprised to see hints that this is their first ever published mobile app. Simply the wrong team with the right target (adoption) and the wrong features. (btw I saw single Developers develope and publish mobile wallet solutions and I can tell you rightnow they are already ahead of you even thoe it is in other eco systems and probably varies by a lot regarding complexity, my assumption is simply that you guys are not worth the money) ---> NAY

According to the information you present, both the Senior iOS and Senior Android positions each receive $41.6k per month. Are these roles filled by one person for each operating system, or how many people work in each role?

PolkaWorld’s initial vote was NAY

Unanimous opposition based on the following considerations:

1. The cost breakdown remains insufficiently detailed. The current “bundled” budget presentation makes it difficult for the community to monitor and assess the rationality of fund usage. Details such as working hours and the number of contributors per feature have not been disclosed. It is unclear whether sufficient human resources are allocated to the project or if there is role redundancy or overstaffing.
2. Given the potential for delays and the lack of clarity regarding feature rollout timelines, we recommend dividing the development into milestone-based stages with phased payments.
3. It would be beneficial to provide an estimated development timeline for each feature, to better assess whether the cost estimates are reasonable. Currently, the flat monthly salary approach may not be entirely appropriate. According to data from https://web3.career/web3-salaries, compensation levels for iOS and Android developers are on the higher end. Each role’s workload may differ, so applying uniform salaries could be questionable.
4. Regarding the marketing team, there are three people mentioned, but who are they and what are their specific roles? How does this differ from potential future MB (milestone-based) proposals?

As the Polkadot App is a high-profile project within the community, we hope its development process and progress can be more transparent and publicly accessible. Therefore, until the missing information is supplemented, our position remains NAY.

For the full list of concerns and feedback, please visit here.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum 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 zero aye and six nay votes from ten available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters expressed strong opposition to the proposal, citing concerns over delays in delivery and the unclear ownership structure among various teams involved. Many felt that the project was too costly for an onboarding app and suggested exploring alternative authentication methods to improve user experience. There was a shared disappointment regarding the lack of timely product availability, with some voters advocating for integrating the app's features into existing wallets instead. Overall, the feedback highlighted a desire for a more efficient and user-centric approach.

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

Truth DAO voted NAY.

Some members expressed the desire to establish KPIs and publicize a detailed budget allocation before voting again. For example:

•	Adding KPIs: The lack of measurable goals might lead to inefficient use of funds. For instance, achieving ≥ X new wallets within X months after launch.
•	Phased payments: Releasing 30% of the funds only after the launch of v1.
•	Budget transparency: Publishing a detailed budget breakdown.

Check out more feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

IMO, the market fit of another PAY app just for polkadot was not fully justifiable, whereas what I saw was lot of portal APPs( cex wallet, payfi ...) seriouly lacking of polkadot(assethub) intergation. An exclusively app developed just for polkadot would be heavily resource consumed, esp. for promoting for adoption. I would highly recommend to use the resource pushing intergration to more universal/mutichain portal apps rather than develop a new one.