PolkaWorld voted NAY

We believe this is a very good direction, as the development of the Polkadot app is still relatively untapped. However, PW rejects any proposal with an hourly rate exceeding $100.

In addition, this project is still in its early adoption phase. While it has clear use cases and has been validated in hackathons, it has not yet seen broad adoption by the community or other projects. We would like to learn more about the future promotion pace and targets.

See more feedback here.

Are you seriously requesting that the treasury purchase new MacBooks and iPhones for you?

In your discussion, you mention you attended multiple hackathons and won multiple different prices - https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/post/3294

What projects have you developed on those hackathons? How are they maintained? Are they in production? Any active users?

(Just making sure you did not just build something to milk them just for money, but you built something useful on them. I suppose you did not just build an extension for your Pluto project, for which you are asking retroactive funding now (Because that would be double spend).)

The Treasury has already funded you for wallet development, but in your latest discussion, you state that:

"Is PlutoWallet maintained? Not really, it is not a priority at the moment. Maybe because of this, a lot of people felt that I have exploited the Polkadot Treasury (understandably) by funding a project that is not maintained anymore. People who voted for the last proposal wanted to use PlutoWallet and probably wanted to see it evolve further. I am very sorry to disappoint anyone with my decision to not focus on the maintenance now, but I think the decision to switch to developing PlutoFramework instead was better. PlutoWallet's code and UX is not ready to be used by the public in my opinion, so I do not want to waste time by maintaining something that is not used by many people. It is actually used internally, I love my PlutoWallet and I use my development version on a day-to-day basis!"

How can you assure us that the Pluto Framework won't become just another unused and/or not ready-to-be-used by the Public project?

The argument that XCavate is using it (While it is you literally developing it fully - https://github.com/XcavateBlockchain/realXmarketMobileApp) is not valid. Why didn't you use the funds they paid you to subtract them from the amount you are asking from the treasury? If they did not pay you, why did you not negotiate any sort of funding for it to offset the treasury a little?

Who are the people on the team?

We do not see any GitHub links or LinkedIn, basically anything to evaluate whether they are real people at all. Are they even involved in the proposal? Because it seems like you, Rostislav, are the only person doing everything. From the code to writing a proposal.

When observing the code, I came across such commits:

This looks highly unprofessional.

https://github.com/RostislavLitovkin/PlutoFramework/commits/master/

And makes changes unreadable for any interested developer who would like to contribute.

The outline of goals seems very vague

Both next plans, but also already existing plans. How are we supposed to know what is meant by "Credit page" or "new dedicated balance page"? No picture, figma, no description, no nothing. Just hours.

It seems as if this proposal was thrown together last minute.

JAM DAO voted NAY on this Proposal

While the DAO recognises that PlutoFramework aims to address a valid ecosystem need for mobile app development, members raised strong concerns about the funding structure and precedent it would set. The requested $130/hour rate was viewed as excessive compared to established treasury benchmarks (~$90/hour for top Web3 developers), inflating the total cost without adequate justification.

The inclusion of high-value hardware purchases, such as two mobile testing devices ($1,500+) and a premium MacBook Pro (~$3,000) , was criticised as unnecessary and better served by cost-effective industry-standard tools like BrowserStack. No commitment was made to repurpose this hardware for ongoing ecosystem benefit. Approving such retroactive expenses risks encouraging other proposers to claim luxury items under treasury funding.

In addition, fact-checking found inaccuracies in the proposal’s claim that only mobile wallets have been developed in the ecosystem, with prior examples like the DataHighway-DHX app disproving this. While the framework concept has merit, the proposal’s inflated rates, non-essential hardware costs, and misleading statements ultimately led to a collective decision against funding.

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 four nay votes from ten available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The discussion reflected both support for nurturing innovative ecosystem tools and significant concerns about project expenses. Some members backed retroactive funding to aid developers, while others argued that the high hourly rate and inclusion of equipment costs were excessive. A case was made for shifting toward forward funding that allowed the community to shape proposals, and several voices questioned the necessity of additional mobile app templates when existing ones were available. Doubts emerged regarding the projected user base and overall demand for the proposed tools. Many felt the funding conditions required adjustment before any treasury support could be justified, leading to an overall decision to oppose the proposal.

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

TruthDAO voted NAY.

An hourly rate of $130 is too high, and the Treasury should not be covering social security, healthcare, or personal tax contributions for the team.

In addition, the project is still in an early adoption phase. While it does have clear use cases and has been validated in hackathons, it has not yet seen broad community or project adoption. We would like to understand more about the future promotion plan and adoption targets.

See the full feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate