Hello,

Could you please indicate if this project is EBSI compliant, especially regarding DID management?

How can the on-chain transactions you are submitting be validated?

A resounding nay.

1. First and foremost, the proposing entity demonstrates zero track record in blockchain software development and delivery. The proposal also lists no past work in the broader field of software development by the proposer. $330K for an MVP by a person/company with no prior demonstration of merit in a highly challenging technical domain simply doesn't make sense.
2. The [proposal](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YyrYuTVqHvlVlfXIzk1zGZILzGyF83yzXOZKAWM200w/edit?tab=t.0) states that the Android and iOS apps are going to be built with Flutter, which requires developers to code in Dart, while the [detailed document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1djEBO7R7iu0JAFGNIYgCkWKw3LOOk6URLnr_-5_TjRQ/edit?tab=t.0) states that the apps are going to be built using PlutoFramework, which [requires](https://plutolabs.gitbook.io/plutoframework#additional-information-about-plutoframework) using C# on .NET. If this is not a contradiction but a deliberate decision, the reasons for the switch should have been addressed in the document.
3. Also regarding the development of the iOS and Android applications, the proposal cites zero past working experience, personnel, or any examples of previously delivered work in the field of mobile application development.
4. The proposal states that smart contract development costs were dropped from $140K in the rejected proposal down to $70K, stating that _"the previous budget was 140K - but we will start with Moonbeam here,"_ with zero explanation of how the costs could drop simply by deciding to build on Moonbeam.
5. Also following the previous concern, the budgeting lacks sufficient granularity. There are broad categories such as Backend Development and API Integrations, but no detailed information as to why these were considered separately, and what goes into each line item.
6. There isn't sufficient information on how the proposer plans to tackle data privacy challenges on a technical level. There is no prior research or development by the proposer referred to in the proposal.
7. Lastly, the initial [document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1djEBO7R7iu0JAFGNIYgCkWKw3LOOk6URLnr_-5_TjRQ/edit?tab=t.0) for the rejected proposal cites a [tweet](https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/1750702107613696118?lang=tr) by Vitalik Buterin that refers to an [article](https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/) by Mozilla Foundation on poor data privacy practices by car manufacturers. It is a known fact that data privacy is an issue in this field, but again, the proposal provides zero explanation on what past experience the proposer is planning to rely on solving the serious issue of data privacy using blockchain technology, other than a list of buzzwords in the original document that fail to address the complex technical architecture (a clear threat model, Sybil resistance, protection of identifiers) required to back such a solution. Also, the one week allocated to finalize such a complex technical architecture is naïve at best.

In summary, the proposer should demonstrate skills and merit on a smaller budget, and ideally first address the technical challenges through a period of R&D and report back to the community before embarking on a budget and complexity of this size.

Best Regards, kukabi | Helikon

Dear Proposer,

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

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](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **five aye and one nay** votes from **ten available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Voters expressed a range of positions, with several supporting the proposal due to its potential to drive wallet growth and transaction volume on Polkadot and Moonbeam through connected vehicles and compliance with upcoming EU rules. Some members highlighted the project’s promising market potential and strategic niche, emphasizing its attractive figures despite concerns over the proposed budget. Others abstained because of conflicts of interest or uncertainty regarding tangible benefits, while one voter opposed it, citing a lack of proven software delivery experience and urging a more modest initial investment. Overall, the discussion underscored both optimism about expanding on-chain activity and caution regarding project execution and costs.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion. **DISCLAIMER:** Our Decentralized Voices delegation voted to abstain on this referendum in accordance with our conflict of interest policy, [announced](https://x.com/PermanenceDAO/status/1905223487976783987) on the 27th of March, 2025.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **second** 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](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **four aye and two nay** votes from **ten available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Comments reflected a range of opinions on the WAGOI proposal for empowering drivers through data sovereignty. Some voters expressed cautious support, highlighting its potential to boost wallet growth and transaction volumes, while others raised significant concerns about technical credibility, contradictory development approaches, and insufficient budget breakdowns. One participant objected to the proposer’s lack of a proven track record in blockchain software, and detailed criticisms questioned the feasibility of addressing data privacy challenges and conflicting technology frameworks. A few members abstained due to conflicts of interest, adding to the overall sentiment that while the project’s goals were appealing, its execution plans required more robust technical validation before committing the $330,000 investment.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion. **DISCLAIMER:** Our Decentralized Voices delegation voted to abstain on this referendum in accordance with our conflict of interest policy, [announced](https://x.com/PermanenceDAO/status/1905223487976783987) on the 27th of March, 2025.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Dear Proposer,

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

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](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **five aye and two nay** votes from **ten available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Supporters endorsed the proposal for its potential to drive wallet growth and boost on-chain activity by connecting vehicles, citing promising transaction and user estimates. Some participants abstained because of conflicts of interest, while one voiced strong concerns over the proposer’s lack of blockchain and mobile app development experience, inconsistencies in technical descriptions, and questionable budgeting explanations. Despite worries about costs and transparency, a few members believed that the projected figures and the EU Data Act opportunity would yield tangible benefits for the broader ecosystem. Overall, the discussion balanced enthusiasm for innovative user adoption with caution regarding technical feasibility and fiscal accountability.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion. **DISCLAIMER:** Our Decentralized Voices delegation voted to abstain on this referendum in accordance with our conflict of interest policy, [announced](https://x.com/PermanenceDAO/status/1905223487976783987) on the 27th of March, 2025.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **4th** 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](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **four aye and two nay** votes from **ten available members**, with **four members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The comments revealed a range of views on the proposal. Some supporters praised the initiative’s potential to boost wallet growth and on-chain activity by connecting 2,500 vehicles, highlighting the forecasted transaction increases on Polkadot/Moonbeam. Others expressed concerns over the cost and ambitious figures, questioning inconsistencies in the development framework and the proposer’s technical background. Several members abstained due to conflicts of interest or pending clarifications on data privacy, budget granularity, and overall benefits to the network. Critics emphasized the lack of proven experience and detailed planning, ultimately contributing to widespread skepticism and a negative stance on the proposal.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion. **DISCLAIMER:** Our Decentralized Voices delegation voted to abstain on this referendum in accordance with our conflict of interest policy, [announced](https://x.com/PermanenceDAO/status/1905223487976783987) on the 27th of March, 2025.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **5th** vote on this proposal is **NAY**.

The **Medium Spender** track requires **50% quorum (at least 4 aye votes) and simple majority of non-abstain votes** according to our [voting policy v0.2](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **three aye and two nay** votes from **eight available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Supporters appreciated the target of connecting 2,500 vehicles and boosting on-chain activity, viewing the proposal as a solid initiative with potential to drive growth for Polkadot and Moonbeam. However, critics questioned the proposer’s lack of blockchain development track record, inconsistencies in technical details regarding the mobile app framework and smart contract costs, and the vague handling of data privacy challenges. Some members expressed concerns over the ambitious budget and unsubstantiated figures, while others abstained due to unanswered questions and unclear benefits. Ultimately, these reservations led to a majority NAY vote on the referendum.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346).

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](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **6th** vote on this proposal is **ABSTAIN**.

The **Medium Spender** track requires **50% quorum (at least 4 aye votes) and simple majority of non-abstain votes** according to our [voting policy v0.2](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **one aye and two nay** votes from **eight available members**, with **five members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> Some members recognized the potential for significant growth in wallet creation and on-chain transactions and appreciated the proposal’s ambition in tapping into the emerging EU Data Act market, while others questioned the proposer’s technical background and the vagueness in budgeting details. Concerns arose over inconsistencies in the described technology stack and the adequacy of the plan to address data privacy and complex technical challenges. Although there was initial optimism regarding the strategic phased approach using Moonbeam and later Polkadot deployment, many decided to withhold full support pending clearer technical explanations and proven blockchain delivery experience, leading overall to an abstention vote.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/QmSvz799Y3dcphpKrX44236rxeGbUmt3i2MTe2Teubb346).

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](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/15ubZj6T7NUYyQw6j4XBkEMJ2vew5w9kqKEcN1QG7Z1weKDV/votes)

PolkaWorld Vote: NAY

While PolkaWorld supported this proposal in the first vote, we believe the concerns raised by HELIKON merit a further response from the team.

In addition, we would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the budget — for example, how many team members are involved in developing each specific feature.

In the first proposal, our main focus was whether there would be future contributions back to the Treasury. We were glad to receive a positive response from the team on this. However, we’ve heard that a VC Bounty might soon be launched by the Treasury, which could be a potential avenue for funding.

More feedback [here](https://southern-manicure-6ee.notion.site/1692-WAGOI-Empowering-drivers-through-data-sovereignty-249a3c644fba80bc8dcccc90b0bd3025?source=copy_link).

PolkaWorld’s second vote is AYE.

Thank you for the detailed explanation — we believe this has addressed most of our questions!

Thank you, [@1THD...9Eoe](/user/1THDCviNjyo7fUmoGZ9f8u3TznQNryWBWQCeZmDe11f9Eoe) REEEEEEEEEE DAO, for sharing your concerns and my apologies for the delayed response. I was checking PolkAssembly, but unfortunately, this comment did not appear there. _(I also noticed that I’m unable to reply directly to your comment here on Subsquare )_

Regarding your points, we fully understand that the intersection of blockchain and EU regulation can seem complex. However, the upcoming **EU Data Act** fundamentally changes this landscape  -  it explicitly mandates that manufacturers, including major automotive brands, must provide vehicle owners  with access to their proprietary vehicle data. 
This is not speculative; it is embedded in EU law and will be enforceable.

Our proposal leverages this new legal framework to create a compliant, secure, and user-friendly system where vehicle owners retain full control of their data. All sensitive and personal information will be managed in strict accordance with the highest EU privacy and data protection standards (GDPR), with blockchain serving to provide **immutable proof of consent and transparent transactions** -  never to circumvent regulation.

This is exactly the type of forward-looking, regulation-aligned innovation the EU aims to encourage, and why now is the ideal moment to position ourselves ahead of this shift. In fact, the EU cabinet member who authored the EU Data Act has expressed support for this proposal.

I had also attempted to set up a call, but unfortunately, the connection options you provided are not functioning (for example, WalletConnect immediately returns an error).

_**I would very much appreciate the opportunity to walk you through the proposal in detail  -  when would be a convenient time for you?**_


Since HIC has been referenced by name by [@Gus Polinski](/user/14fvNFi4zCLL96RssBYdf2gsKMBUhqX1UChuDJntJEFxYwmL) , here a quick response to the points raised. 

A) HIC is currently not an investor in WAGOI
B) We like the proposal on its fundamentals as it solves a real world issue, and we believe onboarding WAGOI could be a great win for Polkadot. However, our fund is still relatively small and we cannot invest in every single project that meets our investment criterial. That means the fact that we have not yet invested in WAGOI should not be construed as a judgement of its merits. 

What is true is that we believe the treasury should have a way to invest in projects and at the same time hold their equity on its balance sheet. We are currently working towards creating such a mechanism, but this will take time. In the meanwhile, voters should vote on what they perceive to be in the best interest of Polkadot today. 

truthDAO voted NAY 

There should be written proof of API partnerships with car manufacturers (at least one signed agreement).
In addition, funding should be disbursed in phases (e.g., 30% at kickoff, 40% upon API validation, 30% upon final delivery).

See more feedback [here](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/truthdao/proposal/QmeWX4nZXuVLNGnXJhaYmVnPhc1JQpTUAHsa8DydVET1mR?page=last).

📖[Truth DAO Governance Statement](https://southern-manicure-6ee.notion.site/Truth-DAO-Manifesto-0-0-1-1e9a3c644fba807fb88ef3eb5adc711b?pvs=4)

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, [Telegram](https://t.me/truthdao_public)

🗳️ [Delegate](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/user/13dVYCGL27HhTWaAby3gAVPQkSqbGAyHQfdeUxsttDZi6afh/posted/referenda)

Yes, in the initial vote there was a mismatch between the description and the actual votes. In reality, it should have been one in favor, one against, and one abstention — so the overall outcome of the first vote was NAY.

But thank you for your timely response. At present, all members of TruthDAO have voted AYE in the second round!

beneficiary

assetKind

amount

validFrom

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

ConfirmStarted

ConfirmAborted

medium_spender

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

technical_maintenance

prosperity_emergency

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

big_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.

***