Threshold
PolkaWorld voted NAY
Two-thirds opposed, one-third in support.
While we recognize that this is a well-intentioned proposal addressing a real pain point—with proven delivery, a solid plan, and clear OKRs and measurable metrics (e.g. 99.5% API uptime, SolEval test results, processing 500-line contracts in under 15 seconds)—and it could indeed serve as important infrastructure for lowering the developer entry barrier, especially as Polkadot Hub gears up to enter a phase of Solidity contract ecosystem expansion,
And while the team demonstrates professionalism and attention to detail both in their past deliverables and in this proposal, and the requested budget appears reasonable.
We ultimately voted NAY, because charging users is in conflict with the treasury’s mission to fund public goods.
View the full feedback here.
Edited
OG Tracker Rating 3/3
Clear display of deliverables✅
Clear display of a valid direct point of contact ✅
Clear display of proposal’s duration✅
OGT Rating aims to help voters make better informed decisions and direct proposers towards certain common-good practices. We are providing feedback based on 3 simple yet crucial criteria which we believe should be included in every OpenGov referenda.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum (at least 5 aye votes) and simple majority of non-abstain votes 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 six aye and zero nay votes from ten available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Voters expressed strong support, highlighting its alignment with a previously established plan and its potential to benefit developers on the Polkadot network. They noted the project's progress and the importance of completing it. However, a couple of voters chose to abstain due to potential conflicts of interest, despite their overall support for the initiative's vision and value.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
DISCLAIMER: Our Decentralized Voices delegation voted to abstain on this referendum in accordance with our conflict of interest policy, announced on the 27th of March, 2025.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Edited
Truth DAO voted NAY.
This appears to be a promising product. However, from our perspective, charging end users while also receiving Treasury support is incompatible—these two approaches should not coexist.
That said, we recommend adding a section to the proposal outlining potential future revenue-sharing models. Once the tool is officially launched, the team could submit a follow-up proposal—either to introduce a self-sustaining model where, for example, 20% of the revenue is returned to the Polkadot community, or to continue offering the service for free with ongoing Treasury support. The direction can be decided based on a vote by DOT holders.
We look forward to reassessing the proposal after the team provides further clarification.
You can read our full feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
🗳️ Delegate
JAM Implementers DAO votes AYE on this proposal.
This is a solid continuation of an already funded and partially delivered initiative. The team behind dAppForge has consistently hit milestones, and their tooling aims to lower the barrier for building in the Polkadot ecosystem.
✅ Milestone History — Previous deliverables have been completed, and the VS Code extension is already live with working support for Substrate, ink!, Rust, and Solidity.
✅ Ecosystem Value — AI-assisted tooling like this can speed up dev workflows, reduce onboarding friction, and help less experienced devs get started building on Polkadot. That’s a net win for ecosystem growth.
✅ Reasonable Ask — At 108,000 USDC, the request is moderate given the scope, and the final milestone unlocks full delivery of the 1.0 version.
While some concerns were raised about Solidity focus, the team has responded by clarifying its intent to serve multi-language Web3 devs — not abandoning Substrate. More flexibility and developer-centric tools ultimately serve Polkadot’s broader goal of interoperability and adoption.
✅ Why vote YES
• 3 milestones already delivered successfully (Substrate, ink!, Solidity, Rust).
• Functional VS Code plug-in with code generation and autocompletion across major languages.
• Strategic support for AssetHub: Enables Solidity smart contracts on Polkadot (Q3 2025).
• Lowers entry barriers: Easier onboarding for Web2/Web3 devs with contextual insights.
• Long-term vision: Public API, Discord/Telegram bots, freemium access planned.
❌ Why vote NO
• Currently limited to VS Code (API coming, but not yet available).
• Few public usage metrics to assess traction and real-world impact.
• Benchmark results pending: Performance vs Claude and others not yet published.
• Team-centralized delivery: Ecosystem dependence on one core team.
🎯 Useful tool aligned with AssetHub’s roadmap, though some may prefer clearer adoption metrics or completed benchmarks before funding.
UPDATE: I took from our conversations with the proposer today that the team is updating their tier limits. I'm going to review my vote after the new pricing models are effective, and a comparison to the tier offerings by ChatGPT, Cursor, Clause and others.
The free version of the product allows up to 30 chat messages and 30 code completions, as listed on the webpage:
This is not even rookie numbers for an active developer, who already has access to tools like ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude and possibly others. It means that the treasury, contrary to its public good nature, is basically funding a privately-owned, paid product, at a total price tag of ~$320K.
For comparison, ChatGPT charges $20 per month for the complete package, and Cursor costs the same. I should note that ChatGPT is extremely well-versed at Polkadot SDK, I would expect the same if not better from Cursor, which supports ink! and Solidity too.
I shared this feedback with the proposer earlier in private discussions, and my stance remains the same: they should commit to making this product virtually free for the Polkadot developer community. If that means that the treasury would need to cover the maintenance costs, so be it. Covering those costs through product payments doesn’t seem feasible to me anyway.
I'm nay until this product is positioned as a total public good.
Best regards,
kukabi | Helikon
Edited