Polkadot Community Foundation: Polkadot Payment Card

Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
1d
Attempts
0
Tally
99.9%Aye
0.1%Nay
Aye
46.84MDOT
Nay
68.66KDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.63%
10.02MDOT
Issuance
1.58BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

PolkaWorld votes AYE

Two-thirds in favor, one-third opposed.

Support Reason:

The Polkadot Payment Card is a great idea! It significantly lowers the barrier for DOT users to seamlessly move between crypto and fiat. Full support!

Concerns from the opposing view:

While this is clearly a promising proposal to drive mass adoption of Polkadot, we believe a few key points should be clarified:

  1. Revenue Allocation Transparency
    The proposal mentions that all surplus fees will be split 50/50 between PCF and Baanx. Since this initiative is part of a public ecosystem, we suggest exploring ways to allocate a portion of the revenue back to the Treasury or toward community incentives.

  2. Cautious Approach to Future Funding Requests
    Although this proposal does not request funds, it notes the possibility of future Treasury requests for cashback or fee subsidies. We recommend that any such proposals should be accompanied by clear KPIs and impact evaluation metrics—and that this expectation be explicitly stated within the current proposal.

  3. Governance and Oversight Mechanisms
    Since this proposal effectively authorizes PCF to act on behalf of the Polkadot community in a commercial partnership, we suggest PCF implement a basic reporting framework to ensure transparency on contract terms, user adoption, and operational progress.

Overall, we voted AYE.

You can view our full feedback here.

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

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

The Wish For Change 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 three nay votes from ten available members, with six members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Members expressed a range of opinions, with many feeling uncertain about the proposal's value and its potential to enhance Polkadot's adoption. Several voters questioned the appropriateness of Autonomous Projects acting as proposers rather than neutral facilitators, seeking clarity on the demand for the proposal and the provider selection process. Concerns were raised about the transparency of the due diligence conducted, as relevant reports were not shared. Overall, a significant number of voters chose to abstain, reflecting their ambivalence and doubts regarding the initiative.

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

Reply
Up

✅ Why vote YES
• Zero cost to the Treasury: Card program setup and ongoing operations require no Treasury funding.
• Non-custodial by design: Users maintain full control of their funds — no preloading, no account custody.
• Global access: Works worldwide via Visa, with Apple Pay and Google Pay support from day one.
• Reputable issuer: Baanx already powers cards for MetaMask, Ledger, and 1inch; regulatory and technical credibility is established.
• Revenue share for the ecosystem: Net usage fees are split 50/50 between Baanx and the PCF, creating a sustainable feedback loop.
• Strengthens Polkadot’s real-world utility: Bridges DeFi and stablecoins to everyday payments in a legally compliant way.
• Strategic for the Polkadot App: Seamless integration into the Polkadot Mobile App expands its use case globally.

❌ Why vote NO
• No open tender: The partnership with Baanx was pre-selected without an open competitive process.
• Regulatory complexity: KYC/AML and OFAC restrictions may limit access in certain regions or for privacy-conscious users.
• Revenue assumptions unclear: The 50/50 fee split may not yield significant returns to PCF or users without high volume.
• Centralized reliance: Long-term exclusivity with a single provider (Baanx) introduces vendor lock-in risk.
• Limited Polkadot ecosystem involvement: Aside from the app integration, broader parachain or DeFi project synergies are not yet detailed.

🎯 A low-risk, high-utility initiative that could bring real-world payment functionality to Polkadot users globally — but some may question the vendor selection process or long-term governance implications.

Reply
Up