Pixelproof V2 Proposal: Decentralized Photo Storage dApp

Hi Matjaz, thank you for the updated proposal. I appreciate the more focused and detailed description and applaud the idea of first doing an MVP. As before, I really support the big picture of utilizing the technology already available in the ecosystem to create a mainstream product that focuses on decentralization, ownership and privacy. The participation from different teams is also extremely positive.

I do still have a couple of questions regarding how the project will address privacy:

• I don't believe I saw the Umanitek AI moderation in the new version, which I understood was meant to scan for sensitive content. Do you intend to use AI and if so, at which point in time and in which way?

• In the Immich fork you are planning, could you please further clarify how the encryption of the photos would be?

From my understanding Immich uses AI on the server, where the photos are not encrypted. On the other hand I understand Ente uses AI on the client(user device) given photos are E2E encrypted. So, in the case that PixelProof photos are also E2EE I am not sure how Immich’s AI would be able to access them.

I would appreciate it if you could further clarify these aspects so I can better understand how the privacy of the photos will be handled to indeed ensure that only the user has access to the photos.

PolkaWorld votes NAY

1.	While we appreciate the effort behind this proposal, we believe it does not fall under the category of essential or public-goods-type initiatives. As network inflation may gradually decreases to 5% or lower, the Treasury will inevitably face tighter budget constraints. It’s important that we begin prioritizing resources toward the most critical and impactful areas.
2.	We’re also unsure about the tangible objectives or user value this product is expected to deliver. Speaking from a user perspective, the current use case doesn’t strongly resonate, and it appears more like a demonstration of Apillon SDK integration rather than a solution to an ecosystem-wide need.
3.	Lastly, key details are still missing — such as a clear budget breakdown, the number of contributors involved, and the estimated development timeline — which makes it difficult to fully assess the proposal’s scope and feasibility.

We share this feedback respectfully and hope it contributes to further refinement of the idea.

You can view our full feedback [here].

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 two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The discussion centered on concerns that the proposal marked a strategic pivot from supporting a developer platform to directly developing a consumer app. Critics argued that the treasury should refrain from acting as an investor in a project like decentralized photo storage, suggesting that alternative funding via structured bounties might be more appropriate. Some comments questioned whether the product adequately addressed a significant user need and urged clearer evidence of market demand, competitive analysis, and active business engagements. Doubts were also expressed about the potential return on prior investments, ultimately leading to a decision that reflected considerable reservations regarding the project's overall viability.

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

Cool consumer app, aye!

It looks like an interesting project

JAM DAO voted NAY on this Proposal

The proposal received mixed feedback from the JAM DAO, with the majority leaning towards criticism. The proposer did clarify the detailed concerns raised by members, but some other key concerns remain.

At $225k for an MVP, some DAO members saw the requested budget as excessive. Several members questioned why a “minimal” product required such significant funding.

Some also noted that a tangible product preview - or even a "vibe-coded" mockup - might have helped the proposal feel more grounded and made it easier to assess its real value.

Although a few were open to the idea as a way to showcase Polkadot’s tech stack, the consensus was that the cost was too high for what was being delivered.

TruthDAO votes AYE

The updated proposal has incorporated earlier suggestions: reducing the budget, cutting the funding request by 61% (from $575K → $225K), and focusing on MVP validation.

It also introduces a user growth verification mechanism — setting a 6-month active user threshold (e.g. 2,000 active users). If this target isn’t met, the project will undergo a review.

Based on these adjustments, we’re voting in favor.

See more feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Contact: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate