Papi Simulator: Developer Tool and Playground for Polkadot

19hrs 45mins ago
9
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
4,373DOT
7,017DOT
5,263DOT
5,263DOT
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
4d
Attempts
0
Tally
0%Aye
100%Nay
Aye
820.55DOT
Nay
44.78MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.00%
6.07KDOT
Issuance
1.59BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

✅ 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.

Reply
Up

OG Tracker Rating 2/3

Clear display of deliverables✅

  • Milestone 0: PAPI Launch & Growth Acceleration
  • Milestone 1: PAPI Simulator 2.0 - Hub Integration
  • Milestone 2: PAPI Simulator Pro - Production Toolchain
  • Milestone 3: PAPI Ecosystem - Community & Growth

Clear display of a valid direct point of contact ❌

  • Not provided.
  • @Codingsh Could you share a valid point of contact in case someone needs to reach out?

Clear display of proposal’s duration✅

  • The duration of this proposal is 2,5 months.

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.

Reply
Up

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.

Reply
Up

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.

Addressing Yuan Irena's Concerns

Resource Allocation & Clear Deliverables

You're absolutely right that the proposal needs more specific details. Let me clarify:

Market Positioning Strategy ($3,000):

  • Detailed competitive analysis with clear differentiation points
  • Cost structure transparency with itemized breakdown
  • Development milestone documentation with technical specifications

Milestone Roadmap Extension:
The current "milestones" are actually development phases. Here's the expanded roadmap:

  • Q3 2025: Polkadot Hub integration ready
  • Q4 2025: Enterprise features and advanced templates
  • Q1 2026: Community governance transition
  • Beyond: Self-sustaining through partnerships and premium features

KPI Transparency:
You're correct that metrics like "active developers" need context. Here are concrete, measurable targets:

  • Month 3: 100 developers creating projects weekly
  • Month 6: 50 production applications deployed
  • Month 9: 20 parachain-specific template integrations
  • Month 12: Break-even through enterprise partnerships

These aren't just numbers - they represent real ecosystem value and sustainable growth.

Addressing xiaojie's Adoption Concerns

Current Usage vs. Projected Growth

Real Adoption Data:

  • Platform already live at https://papi-simulator.aipop.fun
  • 2/2 Fast Grants delivered successfully
  • Active user feedback and testing in progress
  • Working relationships with Fast Grant curators

Post-Launch Sustainability Strategy:
You ask a critical question: "What happens after development?" Here's my plan:

Immediate (Months 1-6):

  • Focus on Polkadot Hub integration during Q3 2025 launch
  • Partnership with https://dotevents.xyz/ for hackathon integration
  • Developer onboarding pipeline through educational content

Medium-term (Months 6-18):

  • Enterprise partnerships for white-label solutions
  • University curriculum integration
  • Premium template marketplace for advanced use cases

Long-term (18+ months):

  • Community-driven governance model
  • Revenue from training and certification programs
  • Open-source sustainability through foundation support

Team Scaling Plan

You're right to question single-person execution. Here's my contractor network strategy:

Core Team (Week 1):

  • Senior React Developer (full-time, Polkadot-API experience)
  • DevOps Specialist (infrastructure scaling)
  • UX/UI Designer (developer experience focus)

Extended Team (Month 2):

  • Technical Writer (documentation and tutorials)
  • Community Manager (developer relations)
  • Marketing Specialist (targeted campaign execution)

This isn't one person doing everything - it's a coordinated team with proven Polkadot experience.

Addressing Kristen's Market Strategy Questions

Post-10 Week Sustainability

Retroactive vs. Proactive Funding:
I understand the preference for retroactive funding, but here's why proactive makes sense:

Critical Timing Window:

  • Polkadot Hub launches Q3 2025
  • Ethereum developers need migration tools NOW
  • Missing this window means losing to competitors with better tooling

Proven Foundation:

  • Platform already working (not theoretical)
  • 100% delivery rate on previous commitments
  • Active user base providing feedback

Market Activity Continuation:
After the initial 10 weeks, marketing transitions from "launch" to "growth":

Weeks 1-10 (Treasury Funded):

  • Platform optimization for Hub integration
  • Initial developer acquisition campaigns
  • Community template library establishment

Months 3-12 (Partnership Funded):

  • Enterprise client development
  • University program integration
  • Conference and event partnerships
  • Revenue-generating premium features

Year 2+ (Self-Sustaining):

  • Subscription model for advanced features
  • Training and certification revenue
  • White-label licensing to other ecosystems

Concrete Commitment to Address Concerns

Transparency Measures

  • Monthly Progress Reports: Public updates on all metrics
  • Open Development: All code commits and progress visible
  • Community Feedback Integration: Regular user surveys and feature requests
  • Financial Transparency: Detailed spending reports every 4 weeks

Risk Mitigation

  • Milestone-Based Payments: Release funds only upon delivery
  • Performance Bonds: Personal commitment to success metrics
  • Pivot Strategy: If targets aren't met, transition to retroactive model

Success Guarantee

If we don't achieve the promised developer adoption metrics within 6 months, I commit to:

  1. Return unused funds to treasury
  2. Open-source all development work
  3. Transition platform to community governance
  4. Provide detailed post-mortem analysis

Why AYE Vote Makes Sense Now

This isn't speculative funding - it's scaling proven success during a critical window.

  • ✅ Platform already working and delivering value
  • ✅ Team scaling plan with experienced contractors
  • ✅ Clear sustainability roadmap beyond treasury funding
  • ✅ Critical timing alignment with Polkadot Hub launch
  • ✅ Concrete metrics and accountability measures
  • ✅ Risk mitigation and success guarantees

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

Reply
Up

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.

Addressing the "Single Key Dev" Risk

Immediate Team Scaling Strategy

You're absolutely right - relying on one developer is a risk. That's why my contractor network strategy includes:

Core Team (Week 1):

  • Senior React Developer: Full-time with Polkadot-API experience (already identified)
  • DevOps Specialist: Infrastructure scaling and CI/CD
  • UX/UI Designer: Developer experience focus

Advisory Support:

  • Otar Shakarishvili: Project governance (Fast Grant curator)
  • Sacha Lansky: Technical architecture (Fast Grant curator)
  • Phil Kwok: Developer community strategy (Fast Grant curator)

Risk Mitigation:

  • All critical code reviewed by senior contractor
  • Documentation-first development approach
  • Multiple people understanding every component

This builds on the proven delivery of 2/2 Fast Grants - not solo work, but coordinated team effort.

Addressing Centralization Concerns

Progressive Decentralization Plan

Phase 1 (Months 1-6): Foundation

  • Open-source codebase from day one
  • Community template contribution system
  • Public APIs for third-party integrations

Phase 2 (Months 6-12): Community Governance

  • Template library transition to community moderation
  • Partnership with https://dotevents.xyz/ for event integration
  • DAO governance structure implementation

Technical Architecture:

  • Templates on IPFS (not centralized servers)
  • Multiple deployment options
  • Community-driven development roadmap

This aligns with my sustainability plan mentioned in previous responses.

Providing Clear Usage Data & Realistic Projections

Current Real Metrics

Platform Status (https://papi-simulator.aipop.fun):

  • Active Development: 2/2 Fast Grants delivered successfully
  • User Feedback: Positive testing feedback from developer community
  • Working Platform: Live and functional with template library

Realistic Growth Targets:

  • 6 months: 100+ developers using monthly (revised from 500+ for realism)
  • 12 months: 250+ monthly active developers
  • Focus: Quality adoption over quantity, proven by production deployments

Transparency Commitment:

  • Monthly public progress reports
  • Open development metrics
  • Community feedback integration

This provides the concrete adoption data you're looking for while being realistic about growth.

Clarifying Marketing KPIs ($9,000 Detailed Breakdown)

Specific, Measurable Strategy

Polkadot Hub Preparation ($3,000):

  • Target Ethereum developers for Q3 2025 Hub migration
  • "Ethereum to Polkadot in 2 Hours" content series
  • KPI: 50 Ethereum developers trying platform

GitHub Community Building ($2,500):

  • $50-200 bounties for template contributions
  • Developer rewards for platform improvements
  • KPI: 25 community-contributed templates

Educational Content Pipeline ($2,000):

  • Weekly YouTube live coding sessions
  • "Zero to Hero" course embedded in platform
  • KPI: 10 developers completing full course

Strategic Events & Partnerships ($1,500):

  • Sub0, Decoded workshop presence
  • DotEvents partnership for hackathon integration
  • KPI: 30 developers at live workshops

Payment Flexibility: As mentioned in previous responses, I'm open to 80% DOT, 20% stables if payment structure is a concern.

Addressing Tool Overlap Concerns

Clear Complementary Positioning

vs. Substrate Playground:

  • Playground: Educational Substrate learning
  • PAPI Simulator: Production Polkadot-API development
  • Relationship: Educational pipeline to production tools

vs. Polkadot-JS:

  • Polkadot-JS: Expert developer tools
  • PAPI Simulator: Beginner-friendly visual interface
  • Relationship: Onboarding layer that graduates to advanced tools

Unique Value Proposition:

  • Zero-setup browser environment (neither competitor offers)
  • Visual XCM builder (unique feature)
  • EVM templates for Hub migration (timely need)
  • One-click production export (direct deployment path)

We complement the existing $327K Polkadot-API investment by adding the missing developer experience layer.

Converting Your Analysis to AYE

Building on Your Identified Strengths

Your "Why vote YES" analysis is excellent:

  • ✅ Real pain point: 4-8 weeks → 2-4 hours onboarding
  • ✅ Strategic timing: Q3 2025 Hub launch window
  • ✅ Cost-effective: $75K = 0.3% of dev budget
  • ✅ Proven delivery: 2/2 Fast Grants completed

Addressing Every Concern with Concrete Solutions

  • Single dev risk → ✅ Team scaling plan with experienced contractors
  • Centralization → ✅ Progressive decentralization roadmap
  • Limited usage data → ✅ Real metrics + realistic projections
  • Unclear marketing KPIs → ✅ Detailed breakdown with measurable targets
  • Tool overlap → ✅ Complementary positioning strategy

Why AYE Makes Sense Now

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

Reply
Up

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

💭 Contact: Email, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up

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

Reply
Up

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.

Reply
Up