Threshold
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.
PolkaWorld’s initial vote is NAY.
As a Chinese community, we genuinely hope to see more teams from China contributing to Polkadot, and we’ve consistently supported and encouraged Chinese teams to get involved in the ecosystem.
That said, we do have a few questions regarding this proposal and would appreciate the team’s response:
While the proposal outlines a wide range of activities, it lacks measurable impact indicators—such as how many developers will remain active in the ecosystem, or how many projects will actually launch as a result. The content production budget alone is $84,800 USDT, yet success is measured solely by the number of articles published, without assessing their real influence. In particular, given the limited traction over the past year, how does the team plan to improve in 2025?
One of Polkadot’s key challenges today is not the lack of educational content, but the absence of real entry points into the ecosystem after courses end. For example, each Bootcamp costs up to $10,000 USDT to operate, with a total course-related budget close to $90,000 USDT—but it’s unclear whether these are developed in collaboration with ecosystem teams, aligned with active bounties, or connected to real-world project needs.
The division of responsibilities between OneBlock+ and PaperMoon is vague. Budget ownership is not clearly defined, and the proposal lacks transparency on how many team members are involved and who is responsible for each part of the project. We recommend providing more detailed team information, including specific individuals from OneBlock+ and PaperMoon involved in each workstream.
Finally, while we acknowledge and appreciate OneBlock and PaperMoon’s contributions to the developer community—especially through hackathons and online courses—we believe the content creation portion of this proposal raises some questions. In general, charging for content is only reasonable when the platform has achieved a certain level of reach and user engagement. Moreover, it’s not clearly defined whether this content work falls under OneBlock or PaperMoon. In our view, such monthly summaries or written deliverables should ideally be considered supporting outputs of the courses and hackathons—not standalone services.
You can read our full feedback here.
As a long-term builder in the Polkadot ecosystem, Crust Network supports the proposal submitted by OneBlock+.
We believe that China remains a vital region for Polkadot's growth, with a large and technically capable developer base that should not be overlooked. Educational initiatives in this region are essential for onboarding the next wave of builders, and it’s clear that OneBlock+ has played a leading role in this mission.
Over the past years, we've had the opportunity to collaborate with OneBlock+ across educational campaigns and offline events. From our firsthand experience, we can confidently say that their content, courses, and execution quality consistently meet a high standard. Their track record speaks for itself—with 40,000+ community members, top university engagement, and hackathons that drive real impact.
Crust Network firmly believes that sustainable developer communities are the foundation of a thriving Web3 ecosystem, and OneBlock+ is one of the best-positioned teams to lead this in China and beyond.
Having learned Polkadot technology through OneBlock, I deeply recognize OneBlock's significant and indispensable contributions to advancing the development and adoption of Polkadot technology in China. I sincerely hope to see more Polkadot developers and contributors emerge within the Chinese community.
OneBlock+ is experienced in developer communities. Developer communities are necessary. China is an indisputable important region for developers.
I hope they can help bring good projects and talents to the Polkadot ecosystem. Fighting!
Approximately 40% of the developers on the Bifrost core team are graduates of OneBlock courses. They are exposed to Substrate development through OneBlock and introduced to the blockchain industry by OneBlock. All of them work hard and are responsible at Bifrost.
At the same time, I agree with the need for a higher ROI raised by opponents of the proposal. Although I don’t quite know how OneBlock can achieve a higher ROI, perhaps they could include ideas about ROI in the proposal. However, they have indeed supplied a lot of excellent talent to the Polkadot ecosystem.
All in all, I support OneBlock and the proposal. Thanks to OneBlock for recommending developers to Bifrost. I hope the proposal will receive more support.
Lurpis from Bifrost
On behalf of SubQuery Network, we’d like to recognize OneBlock+ for their longstanding commitment to fostering developer growth within the Polkadot ecosystem. Our past collaborations with their team have been highly productive, demonstrating their deep expertise in education, community engagement, and technical onboarding—particularly for Chinese-speaking developers.
Over the years, OneBlock+ has made significant contributions through bootcamps, hackathons, and localized educational content, helping to expand Polkadot’s reach in Asia. Their structured approach and partnerships with key stakeholders, such as universities and developer communities, have consistently delivered measurable impact.
While we encourage the community to evaluate their latest proposal on its merits, we can attest to OneBlock+'s professionalism and track record in advancing Polkadot’s ecosystem. Their work has been valuable in the past, and we look forward to seeing their continued efforts in supporting builders.
#PolkadotEcosystem #DeveloperGrowth
TruthDAO Vote AYE
Following a call with the OneBlock and Papermoon teams, some members of TruthDAO gained a clearer understanding of the division of responsibilities and execution plan outlined in this proposal. Papermoon is primarily responsible for providing instructors, course content, and Q&A support, while OneBlock is leading the overall execution and coordination of the project.
We find the cost of four sessions across three instructors to be reasonable. Additionally, OneBlock has revised and resubmitted the proposal with a more detailed and transparent breakdown of the budget, making the scope and responsibilities easier to assess and enhancing the proposal’s feasibility.
OneBlock has long played a key role in building the developer ecosystem for Polkadot in China, organizing hackathons, technical courses, and community events. They have consistently contributed to onboarding and nurturing new talent for the ecosystem. In the current context—where localized developer education and onboarding pathways are still limited—we view this type of foundational education initiative as a clear net positive for the ecosystem.
Given the proposal’s well-defined scope, reasonable budget, and experienced delivery teams, we are voting AYE in support of its execution. We also encourage the proposers to incorporate more explicit ROI evaluation mechanisms in the future to further strengthen community trust and governance transparency.
View the full feedback summary here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
🗳️ Delegate
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
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 one aye and three nay votes from ten available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The discussion reflected significant skepticism regarding the proposal’s cost-effectiveness and overall value. Some members expressed uncertainty about the proposed budget, questioning whether the return on investment justified the expenditure, and suggested waiting to see clearer outcomes from other recently funded outreach projects. Concerns arose about the absence of concrete impact metrics and clarity on the allocation of responsibilities between the main team and its partner. Although there was acknowledgment of the team’s ongoing contributions and efforts in developer education and community building, doubt over the quantified benefits ultimately led most to vote against the proposal, with a few choosing to abstain.
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
JAM DAO votes AYE on this proposal.
We recognize the value of consistent and dev-focused education efforts like OneBlock+. The team’s track record—especially the notable stat that 40% of Bifrost’s core devs are OneBlock+ alumni - shows tangible results that contribute directly to the Polkadot ecosystem.
That said, we also echo the broader sentiment: education funding must evolve beyond buzzwords and vanity metrics. Future proposals should better articulate the dev funnel, outcomes, and alignment with Polkadot’s core values. Clear frameworks for onboarding, retention, and long-term contribution will be key.
For now, we support this proposal based on its past impact and updated clarifications.
🚨🚨🚨 TOTAL BLOODY GRIFT, THIS ONE 🚨🚨🚨
Honestly, this proposal reads like someone sat down with a cuppa, asked ChatGPT “How do I fleece the Polkadot Treasury?” and then just copy-pasted the output straight into a PDF. Not even the decency to change the font.
It’s got all the classics, doesn’t it?
WeChat stats inflated like a hot air balloon at a village fête — “look, Mum, 40,000 devs!”
Bootcamps with “certificates” no one asked for
Hackathons apparently “incubating” 15 projects per round — which presumably disappear quicker than the biscuits at tea time
And, of course, a cheeky Gavin Wood selfie to lend the whole thing some gravitas
You can just picture it now:
"Dear ChatGPT, please write a vaguely technical proposal full of fluff, filler, and unverifiable KPIs. Bonus points if you can make it sound like we're single-handedly onboarding China."
It’s all buzzwords and back-patting, but nothing of real substance. PolkaVM this, JAM that — mate, half the target audience probably thinks Rust is just a dodgy spot on their car bonnet.
Honestly, if you believe this is legit, and was written by a real person and not an overconfident language model trying to meet a word count, I’ve got a lovely bridge to sell you.