Threshold
OG Tracker Rating 2/3
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 votes NAY
The PAPI tool has already been developed. This proposal is meant to adapt it for Polkadot. The funding requested covers a 10-week period, but what are the plans afterward—especially regarding the marketing component? Marketing takes time to build momentum. What happens after these two months of activity?
We suggest that proposals like this apply for Treasury funding only after a prototype is built or the tool is fully launched and adopted. Right now, we see many similar tools aimed at “lowering the barrier for developers,” but how many are actually being used?
In this case, with just one person on the team and plans to hire a developer, plus expecting the engineer to also handle promotion, we have doubts about both execution and outreach. Therefore, we’re voting NAY.
We recommend applying for retroactive funding once there is real adoption.
You can view our full feedback here.
Thank you for the detailed feedback from Yuan Irena, xiaojie, and Kristen ( @polkaworld ) I want to address each concern directly and provide clarity on our long-term sustainability plan.
You're absolutely right that the proposal needs more specific details. Let me clarify:
Market Positioning Strategy ($3,000):
Milestone Roadmap Extension:
The current "milestones" are actually development phases. Here's the expanded roadmap:
KPI Transparency:
You're correct that metrics like "active developers" need context. Here are concrete, measurable targets:
These aren't just numbers - they represent real ecosystem value and sustainable growth.
Real Adoption Data:
Post-Launch Sustainability Strategy:
You ask a critical question: "What happens after development?" Here's my plan:
Immediate (Months 1-6):
Medium-term (Months 6-18):
Long-term (18+ months):
You're right to question single-person execution. Here's my contractor network strategy:
Core Team (Week 1):
Extended Team (Month 2):
This isn't one person doing everything - it's a coordinated team with proven Polkadot experience.
Retroactive vs. Proactive Funding:
I understand the preference for retroactive funding, but here's why proactive makes sense:
Critical Timing Window:
Proven Foundation:
Market Activity Continuation:
After the initial 10 weeks, marketing transitions from "launch" to "growth":
Weeks 1-10 (Treasury Funded):
Months 3-12 (Partnership Funded):
Year 2+ (Self-Sustaining):
If we don't achieve the promised developer adoption metrics within 6 months, I commit to:
This isn't speculative funding - it's scaling proven success during a critical window.
The Chinese community's concerns about sustainability and real adoption are valid and important. My response demonstrates that this proposal addresses those concerns with concrete plans, measurable outcomes, and long-term viability.
Vote AYE to ensure Polkadot captures the Q3 2025 developer migration opportunity with proven, sustainable tooling.
Fred (@codingsh)
Platform: https://papi-simulator.aipop.fun
Commitment: Transparency, accountability, and ecosystem success
Thank you @AzzMog AzzMog for the thorough analysis! I appreciate that you've identified both the strengths and concerns. Let me address each "Why vote NO" point directly with concrete solutions, maintaining consistency with my previous responses.
You're absolutely right - relying on one developer is a risk. That's why my contractor network strategy includes:
Core Team (Week 1):
Advisory Support:
Risk Mitigation:
This builds on the proven delivery of 2/2 Fast Grants - not solo work, but coordinated team effort.
Phase 1 (Months 1-6): Foundation
Phase 2 (Months 6-12): Community Governance
Technical Architecture:
This aligns with my sustainability plan mentioned in previous responses.
Platform Status (https://papi-simulator.aipop.fun):
Realistic Growth Targets:
Transparency Commitment:
This provides the concrete adoption data you're looking for while being realistic about growth.
Polkadot Hub Preparation ($3,000):
GitHub Community Building ($2,500):
Educational Content Pipeline ($2,000):
Strategic Events & Partnerships ($1,500):
Payment Flexibility: As mentioned in previous responses, I'm open to 80% DOT, 20% stables if payment structure is a concern.
vs. Substrate Playground:
vs. Polkadot-JS:
Unique Value Proposition:
We complement the existing $327K Polkadot-API investment by adding the missing developer experience layer.
Your "Why vote YES" analysis is excellent:
Critical Timing: Q3 2025 Polkadot Hub launch creates urgent need for Ethereum developer migration tools.
Proven Foundation: Platform already working, team has 100% delivery record, community feedback is positive.
Strategic Investment: Makes existing $327K Polkadot-API treasury investment more valuable by adding accessibility layer.
Risk Mitigation: Milestone-based payments, transparent reporting, team scaling plan, sustainability roadmap.
Vote AYE because the timing is critical, the solution is proven, and the team is ready to scale responsibly during Polkadot's most important developer migration opportunity.
Fred (@codingsh)
Platform: https://papi-simulator.aipop.fun
Track Record: 2/2 Fast Grants Delivered
Commitment: Transparent execution, community success
TruthDAO votes NAY
Two-thirds voted against, while one-third expressed support. We acknowledge that the proposal is very detailed and thoughtfully planned. However, as a general principle, we do not support proposals that do not involve a clear demand for DOT, unless there is a compelling reason.
Additionally, some members suggested that proposals like this would be better suited for retroactive funding.
You can view our full feedback 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 zero aye and four nay votes from ten available members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Critics raised concerns about the proposal’s financial strategy and overall assumptions. They questioned the decision to request DOT instead of stable coins and found the weekly ask, especially for marketing aimed at developer acquisition, to be steep and potentially ineffective. Several comments called for a more detailed explanation of the dramatic reduction in developer onboarding time and a clearer depiction of the return on investment given the annual expenditure. Some suggested that the project would benefit from smaller, incremental funding releases coupled with proven deliverables, indicating that more cautious steps were preferable to the proposed lump sum.
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 NAY on this proposal.
While we acknowledge the need for better developer tools in the Polkadot ecosystem, this specific proposal raised too many red flags to justify our support in its current form.
Our decision was guided by several key concerns:
Upfront Payment Structure: The request for $15,000 (20% of the total budget) before any deliverables contradicts past precedent and exposes the DAO to unnecessary risk.
Governance & Continuity Risks: The project is overly reliant on a single developer and lacks fallback mechanisms. Additionally, the proposal doesn’t include open-sourcing commitments or clear community engagement milestones during development.
Insufficient Validation: There’s no MVP or substantial usage data to back claims of demand or sustainability, nor does it explain how enterprise features and courses would be adopted.
Overlap & Duplication: Some functionality may duplicate existing tools like Substrate Playground or Polkadot-JS without clearly proving added value.
Missing Integration & Post-Funding Strategy: The proposal lacks detailed integration plans with current Polkadot tooling and offers no long-term sustainability roadmap or metrics for success.
Lack of Community Safeguards: There's no mention of OpenGov alignment, royalty kickbacks, or structured community demos during the 10-week build timeline.
Until these gaps are addressed with more transparency, stronger accountability, and clearer deliverables, we cannot endorse funding this initiative.
✅ Why vote YES
• Real pain point, real solution: Onboarding time drops from 4–8 weeks to under 4 hours.
• Already live: Working platform, active users, 2/2 Fast Grants delivered.
• Strategic timing: Polkadot Hub Q3 launch needs Ethereum dev onboarding tools.
• Clear deliverables: 10-week roadmap, EVM templates, Visual XCM, production export.
• Community-driven growth: Template sharing, “Zero to Hero” course, live workshops.
• Cost-effective impact: $75K = just 0.3% of dev budget for major DX improvement.
❌ Why vote NO
• Relies on one key dev: High dependence on Fred could be a risk.
• Centralized platform (initially): Open source and decentralization are planned, not immediate.
• Limited usage data shared: No clear public metrics on real user adoption.
• Unclear marketing KPIs: $9K for dev acquisition with few concrete details.
• Potential overlap: May duplicate existing tools like Substrate Playground or Polkadot-JS.
🎯 Structured and timely proposal aligned with Polkadot Hub needs – but some may prefer more decentralization or clearer adoption metrics first.