Threshold
A resounding nay.
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, 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.
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 on the 27th of March, 2025.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
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.
Thank you, @1THD...9Eoe 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 , 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.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
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?