- Referenda/
- Medium Spender/
- #1666/
- 0.0%
- 0.0%
Threshold
- 0.0%
This comment is a reply to Learn Polkadot who is one of the involved parties in this referendum and on the Inter Miami sponsorship.
https://x.com/LearnPolkadot/status/1944501218791108617
We still maintain that there are valid criticisms of this referendum and other things beyond the scope of this referendum.
IM remains to the day the most expensive non-incentive referendum which has shown no significant results so far despite its size where results are expected to be also big. These are not irrelevant metrics in our view. No visible conversion from all this exposure is apparent either as BD, community reach or increase or price impact, whatever the name of the metric is. Hospitality packages are also a question mark. So, if a sponsorship hasn’t blown those numbers, expectations or at least shown significant conversion/results (it hasn’t even reached the promised numbers in the original referendum – now nuked with a boilerplate replacement) then it makes it impossible for the sponsoring entity to continue as is and it seems natural to reconsider and it's logical to reignite the questions about active conversions. If you didn't wow us with results, at least bring the data (W. Edwards Deming ghost about our IM deal - possibly).
This is more or less our same point of view only for Saxemberg it happened earlier than others and because of this referendum execution now it is now evident to us all. This technical integration was a chief concern of us even back in the initial vote same with BD, and other things. Once we realized that the current situation would be the outcome of a +10M sponsorship we proceeded to vote NAY. It is on the record that one of our members even requested to have a budget for tech on the initial referendum or at least to have a plan for integrations. So in short, yes, we agree that this mobile app is something we are not exited about given the entire context, expectations and promises made.
Right now there is proof that Messi is now the sales point for Polkadot we were led to believe during the initial vote. No matter how much Messi, Inter Miami and others are pushed into the community and into the world, these "Impressions in the millions" have had limited or no impact in a product such as Polkadot, its price, infrastructure, VIP attention, etc. In short, these million upon millions of promised impressions of Messi translate to little or nothing and it’s been shown. Just because said sponsorships are apparently a “good deal” doesn’t mean we gotta take them. We think that Polkadot is exactly at the same place it would had been had it not sponsored IM.
In any case, the point here was that the contract is with IM and not the Messi brand so based on the past experience, we are not that sure that this app in particular can relate to Messi, Beckham or any name that can be photographed / shared / named on social media.
As for the 2026 doubts we think this is a valid criticism.
The referendum itself says that it ONLY covers the 2025 season (It ends the early days of Dec. 2025 after the playoffs) , so it cannot be a 12 month deal. It’s a -6 month deal as the 2025 season ends in, well 2025 hence our heavy doubt. (pic)
+10M is likely what a sponsorship renewal with IM would cost as the current deal cost the treasury more or less that. Can you prove that Inter Miami will let Polkadot and others use their brand and assets past the end of Dec. 2025 (a 12 month deal) which is the end of Polkadot’s sponsorship time. Without an IM renewal for +2026 we frankly don’t see how this app can be an IM app or related to it in any way shape or form when in 2026 the team gets new sponsorship deals. We don’t see Autonation doing anything Inter Miami related anymore. So, we can safely assume that Polkadot needs to renew the deal with IM to continue using that sponsorship in 2026, does it not?
No idea what actually has been clarified about our post on Polkassembly so we are posting this on Subsquare so that it actually gets clarified. Not sure how this migration to AssetHub/PolkadotHub is going to look now however. Hopefully SMT clarifies that point too.
In any case, consider engaging with the current DVs as all specific feedback, continued comms, etc. have been discontinued until further notice. That was part of our DV effort in accordance to our DV applications. All present interaction is just a part of past actions as DVs which seem relevant given the comments left on X.
Edited
Before talking about sabotage or other major accusations let’s remind ourselves that this is a public information probe initiated by Learn Polkadot so that you two can bring answers to the voters.
- We wish the original 644 text was around so certain details can be pointed out but unfortunately it was nuked.
- The Inter Miami referendum is the largest referendum without a single comprehensive report so you guys better start reporting now you’re one year in and now seeking new referenda and funds.
- Make sure to report about hospitality packages as we have knowledge that you are the responsible of them. Also make sure how these were impactful for BD.
- Make sure to report about these renewal deals, licensing beyond end of sponsorships (highly unusual for brands) since you and some other people are at the table like you have admitted yourself and no appropriate answer has been provided.
- About conversions. If you look at other BD efforts in Polkadot all others have done their best to report back as much as possible. And again, the Polkadot - Inter Miami deal doesn’t have this kind of info.
- Make sure to report back about these over 2b views as Learn Polkadot mentioned a lower number and how these have been turned into concrete impact into Polkadot as of now all these comments seem random and without much backing or substance.
So far the weight of evidence lies on the participants and all the people involved and it was this information probe was initiated by you guys so better start answering to the community in a succinct and provable manner.
@LearnPolkadot
Currently this is the answer about the extension into 2026 which is non satisfactory wherever you see it.
https://youtu.be/Wy76VXWELDA?t=4710
This is an information probe initiated by you so hopefully all these points are answered satisfactorily for all the community. In addition a continuous reporting about this Inter Miami effort should be preferable as no proper reports have been published.
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 five nay votes from ten available members. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Voters expressed concerns over the proposed rewards program’s overall benefits and return on investment, arguing that the expenditure had already been high and did not align with Polkadot’s core priorities. They noted that the commercial focus and vague budget failed to justify treasury funding for a project that targeted sports fans instead of enhancing developers’ infrastructure or technical integration. While one comment highlighted that the recent partnership might justify integration, the majority emphasized that the proposal lacked clear technical vision and sufficient community discussion, suggesting it would be better suited as a future extension rather than an immediate commitment.
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.
We appreciate the effort to revise and scale back the original proposal after community feedback on Ref #1575, but we remain unconvinced that this initiative delivers measurable value to the Polkadot ecosystem at this time.
Despite the high-profile nature of the partnership and use of an established vendor, the proposal lacks clear metrics for on-chain impact, user conversion, or how this engagement would translate into sustainable ecosystem growth.
Previous marketing-style initiatives have yet to demonstrate meaningful return or long-term traction for Polkadot, and we believe future treasury allocations should focus on initiatives with direct technical, governance, or ecosystem-layer outcomes.
We’re open to reconsidering if future proposals bring transparent KPIs tied to on-chain engagement, open metrics reporting, and community-aligned outcomes.
I've been traveling across Europe and noticed a surprising number of people wearing Inter Miami shirts, full of enthusiasm. When I wore my pink Polkadot shirt, quite a few people, including kids, stopped me to ask where I got it. That’s the kind of visibility this partnership is generating. And honestly, I can only imagine the potential impact once the app is launched. I was skeptical at first, but now I’m convinced: the app is the natural next step in this collaboration.
They could’ve distracted us with abstract KPIs and vanity metrics, but instead they came to us with a clear, tangible proposal: “We’re building an app for Inter Miami fans, and it might even see more usage than the wallets we’ve been funding for years.” And how did we react? We got caught up in the details and lost sight of the bigger picture. Like I said, I was one of the skeptics, but seeing what’s already been achieved, I now believe this partnership is just the beginning of something bigger. If you can't see that, then I'm genuinely concerned about our collective ability to recognize business value.
With that said, if this proposal doesn’t pass, I truly hope the team finds funding elsewhere and manages to show those involved in governance just how and where we're getting it wrong.
PolkaWorld votes NAY
First, we believe this type of project is not where Polkadot’s resources are most critically needed at this stage. The conversion of Web2 users into Web3 participants is inherently a long-term and complex process — especially in the sports vertical, where user expectations around display and engagement often diverge from the native strengths of Web3 technology.
It’s difficult to expect sports fans to become true Web3-native users based on a single interactive experience. This audience doesn’t align closely with the ecosystem’s current priorities, such as attracting developers, DeFi users, or active on-chain governance participants. In that sense, the proposal’s target demographic does not reflect the key needs of the ecosystem’s current growth phase.
Second, from a budgeting perspective, the proposal lacks clarity. Many line items are not broken down in enough detail to assess whether costs are reasonable. In particular, the licensing and development fees, user acquisition and activation expenses, and expected outcomes are not sufficiently explained — making it hard for the community to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the initiative.
Fundamentally, this proposal appears to aim at converting Miami-based fans into Polkadot users — a goal we understand, but the execution plan is vague. It lacks defined milestones, clear deliverables, and a transparent overview of how many participants are involved. In addition, the proposal does not clarify the product’s revenue model, which is important in determining whether it fits within the scope of Treasury funding.
Lastly, we want to reiterate a broader principle: the Treasury should not be used to fund commercial applications. It should return to its core purpose — supporting essential common goods that serve the broader ecosystem.
As the network may moves toward a lower inflation rate (5% or below), Treasury resources will naturally shrink. We believe now is the time to prepare for that future by focusing funds on what truly matters — critical infrastructure and ecosystem-wide public goods.
You can read our full feedback [here].