Team ParaSpell✨ is working closely with team Snowbridge on allowing developers to integrate bridge functionality into their dapps with ease, so that the users can enjoy moving assets to/from Ethereum with ease. 

Our experience with the Snowbridge team is very pleasant, and they react to our support questions very promptly. The tech they built is solid, and vital for the ecosystem.

With kind regards,
Team ParaSpell✨

Hi Guys,

As highlighted by the UXB-8, proposing a full SDK to devs is the key to success, especially considering Polkadot HUB now. So i'm glad to see this milestone in the proposal.
UXB-8 research doc: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/ux-bounty-uxb-8-bridge-ux-research-doc/13713

There is also a few points that should be addressed as you are mentioning **"Improving our consumer-targeted marketing efforts"**
1. Could you please add the "Funded/Powered/Secured by Polkadot" on the Snowbridge app page please?
You can find the related branding here: https://distractive.notion.site/polkadot-brand-hub

2. Have you ever considered to rebrand into "Polkadot bridge"?
You are fully funded by the eco and Snowbridge IS the the canonical bridge of the ecosystem.
So in terms of Marketing and discoverability, it's a big big miss.
You could ask the community if they want such a rebrand which seems a win-win for everyone.

3. Have you ever considered to make a PR to Defillama so that they add Snowbridge into their bridge pages?
It will also help the bridge discoverability and improve Polkadot awareness.
https://defillama.com/bridges

Feel free to let some feedbacks also on the UXB-8 research doc forum post, we'd like to get in touch with you guys but we lack contacts so far :). You are identified as key stakeholder.

Cheers.
Thomas (Bifrost and UX Bounty advocate).

[@SuperDupont](16MicRbY5KkHP8oAehmHEfssM5h4t7sbVhGprqVxV3uV3Yc5-polkadot) Stronger together !

PolkaWorld votes NAY

While this proposal offers a more detailed structure, the core issue—excessively high personnel costs—remains unresolved.

1️⃣ Runway Budget: The engineers’ pay is listed at $100/hour, plus an additional $30/hour in retroactive fees, meaning the real rate is still $130/hour. PolkaWorld has made it clear that we reject any proposal exceeding a $100/hour rate.

2️⃣ Technical Support (Ops) Costs: The quoted $142,000 for technical support appears to overlap with developer salaries. This not only raises questions about justification but also far exceeds PolkaWorld’s reference standard for technical ops (roughly $30/hour).

3️⃣ Administrative Expenses: Please clarify whether there is dedicated administrative staff. Do these expenses align with the actual staffing structure? (PolkaWorld believes the Treasury is a funder, not a backer of company overhead.)

4️⃣ Failed Treasury Spend: This is a significant amount. Why wasn’t this submitted separately instead of being bundled into this proposal?

5️⃣ Retroactive Reward ($937,500): We continue to disagree with this “deliver-once, get-paid” incentive structure. As pointed out in the last proposal, it fails to align with principles of long-term incentivization and risks resource waste.

6️⃣ Overall Amount: The total requested is $3,124,400, still an enormous ask—based on the July 23 DOT price of $3.753, plus a 10% slippage buffer. Why not request funding in stablecoins directly?

In essence, this proposal is not substantially different from the previous one. The development team’s costs remain extremely high, and the product itself has yet to demonstrate clear market competitiveness. 

Read the full feedback [here](https://southern-manicure-6ee.notion.site/1682-Snowbridge-2025-2026-Proposal-Redux-23aa3c644fba80e59d4fecab7602019e?source=copy_link).

Hello, 
i would like to know if Snowbridge generates profits by bridge transactions? Thanks


On behalf of the 🌶 Hungarian Polkadot DAO 🌶:

We appreciate the work your team has done with SnowBridge and recognize its technical significance. However, we would like to share some concerns regarding your current proposal.

First, the funding is requested as a single lump sum rather than being broken down into milestone-based batches. We strongly believe it would be more appropriate, and in line with OpenGov best practices, to structure the request in separate tranches tied to clear deliverables.

Additionally, it’s unfortunate that the beneficiary does not have an on-chain identity, which is something we consider important for transparency and accountability.

Regarding the funding request itself: while we respect your contributions and would be happy to support your team, we are voting Nay on this proposal. From our perspective, the requested amount lacks adequate justification from a business standpoint. We do not see a clear path outlined for SnowBridge to become a self-sustaining protocol with a defined revenue model.

We understand that, currently, there is no formal requirement for ecosystem projects to reach self-sustainability by a set deadline. However, given the size of the request, we believe it’s fair to expect a more detailed strategy for long-term independence from the treasury.

From our point of view, it would be beneficial to define tangible KPIs and revenue goals for the future. For example, you might aim for SnowBridge to generate $1M in annual revenue by 2027, increasing that by 20% each year. This would involve estimating the number of bridge or atomic swap transactions needed to achieve those targets, and crafting a strategy to get there.

In our view, this kind of roadmap would demonstrate a strong commitment to sustainability and long-term value creation for the ecosystem. Until we see improvement on these points in a potential future OpenGov proposal, it is conceivable that our DAO will continue to represent its voice on the Nay side.


beneficiary

Update Aug 5th: We have created a new proposal that addresses much of the feedback for this proposal here: [https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/3313](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/3313)

Please check out our new proposal

calls

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

big_spender

Replaced by: https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1695

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

medium_spender

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

Origin able to cancel slashes and manage minimum commission.

Origin for spending up to 10,000,000 DOT from the treasury as well as generally administering it.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin able to spend around 250 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 1,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 10,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 100,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend up to 1,000,000 DOT from the treasury at once.