WAGOI - Empowering drivers through data sovereignty.

Rejected
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Request
330KUSDC
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation
4d
Attempts
1
Tally
41.1%Aye
50.0%Threshold
58.9%Nay
Aye
25.04MDOT
Nay
35.9MDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

    Threshold

  • 0.0%
Support
0.27%
4.37MDOT
Issuance
1.6BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Actions
Check how referenda works here.
Call
Metadata
Timeline6
Votes Bubble
Curves
Statistics
Comments

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?

Reply
Up

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 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 states that the apps are going to be built using PlutoFramework, which requires 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 for the rejected proposal cites a tweet by Vitalik Buterin that refers to an article 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

Reply
Up

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

Reply
Up

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.

Reply
Up

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?

Reply
Up

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.

Reply
Up

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

Reply
Up