[Retroactive] SubWallet Development from August 2024 to March 2025

1C42...jrSb
3d ago
9
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
≈1.07MUSDC
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
7d
Attempts
0
Tally
52.1%Aye
47.9%Nay
Aye
≈21.86MDOT
Nay
≈20.08MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.27%
≈4.38MDOT
Issuance
≈1.59BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Or do delegation here, check wiki.
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments
14pa...oata

Vote: Aye
SubWallet has indeed delivered excellent service over the past year, with significant improvements in product quality. Many of its features are now among the best in the ecosystem, and it’s one of the most popular wallets in the Polkadot space. The team is also highly active and engaged in the community. It’s a fantastic product, and the proposal is clear and well-structured.

Reply
Up 1
16Mi...3Yc5

Strong and responsive team constantly answering community needs and delivering.

Reply
Up 1
12mP...Eyoh

PolkaWorld votes NAY

We appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but we find the budget section too vague to properly assess its reasonableness. For example:

1️⃣ In the Maintenance section, the proposal provides a flat quote of $32,000 per month—totaling $256,000 over eight months—without enough detail to understand how this figure was determined.

2️⃣ In the Major Improvements section, the information is similarly high-level, listing only timelines and hourly rates, without clarity on how much manpower and development effort will be dedicated to each stage.

In line with PolkaWorld’s published voting guidelines, we feel unable to support proposals where the budget lacks sufficient clarity and transparency.

Additionally, some members have raised a broader question: since SubWallet already has a sizable user base, how is it performing financially, and could there be a path toward gradually becoming self-sustaining?

You can read the full feedback here.

Edited

Reply
Up
13m1...6FcA

We’ve worked with SubWallet since day one with the UX Bounty and recently completed a UX audit with them (see report).

They’ve consistently demonstrated a strong UX focus, deep ecosystem knowledge, and relevance across other ecosystems like EVM and BTC. This is a rare and valuable combination for UX work to understand the context for new users coming to Polkadot.

Add to that an outstanding work ethic, and you’ve got one of the top teams in our ecosystem.

Reply
Up
13zn...P5ju

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum 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 six aye and zero nay votes from ten available members, with four members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Voters expressed mixed feelings about the proposal's high funding level while recognizing SubWallet’s steady contributions to the ecosystem. Several pointed to comparable past funding for similar projects and the need for more sustainable funding models, with some emphasizing the team's strong performance and regional impact. Concerns were raised over budget size and potential overreliance on treasury funds, yet many endorsed the proposal as a fair and necessary investment to support a key industry player. Ultimately, the majority voted in favor, reflecting a willingness to back the project despite cost reservations and advocating for ongoing evaluation of wallet funding practices in the ecosystem.

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
13dV...6afh

TruthDAO Vote: NAY

Two-thirds supported, one-third abstained. According to TruthDAO’s voting rules, a “Big Spender” proposal requires 80% approval to pass. Since we calculate the final result based solely on the NAY vote, the actual approval did not reach the 80% threshold.

Supporters believe SubWallet is a critical infrastructure project within the Polkadot ecosystem, having demonstrated strong technical capability and user value. The retroactive funding model reduces the risk of fund misuse, and high user activity validates the product’s effectiveness. They recommend adding more budget details and strengthening oversight mechanisms, but overall see the benefits as outweighing the potential risks.

Abstainers acknowledge SubWallet’s value but feel the overall cost is still too high.

See all feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

Reply
Up
13NC...8YFJ

JAM DAO voted NAY on this Proposal

While the DAO recognises SubWallet as a valuable and widely used ecosystem tool, the funding request of over $1M for 8 months was considered excessive for a single wallet project. Members noted that while other wallet teams have received comparable sums, this highlights a broader issue of high treasury spending on wallets, rather than justifying this particular request.

Concerns were raised over the lack of prior governance approval through formal processes such as WFC, especially given the retroactive nature of the funding. The absence of transparent fee structures, milestone-based accountability, and clear evidence of treasury benefits further undermined confidence.

While some members acknowledged SubWallet’s positive ecosystem impact, the combination of high costs, process gaps, and accountability concerns led to a collective decision to reject the proposal in its current form, with suggestions for future requests to include reduced amounts and stronger governance compliance.

Reply
Up