Snowbridge 2025/2026 Stabilized (v3)

Bagpipes use snowbridge, moooaar opensource projects should integrate.
~flipchan

As Lead of Parity's Bridges team, I support this proposal. The roadmap Snowfork commits to delivering here has been created in partnership with Parity, with them integrating our feedback and guidance to focus on increasing bridge adoption and expanding Polkadot reach.

Each one of the milestones/deliverables they commit to:

• Deploying V2, an overhaul of our protocol with many new improvements
• Adding support for major Ethereum L2 chains
• Support for single-click, multi-hop swap and bridge transactions
• Simplifying the SDK developer experience and documentation
• Optimizing our light client for faster, cheaper bridging - down to 1-2 minutes for Polkadot -> Ethereum transfers.
• Giving OpenGov new superpowers that it can use to poach liquidity from Ethereum products
• Ramping up support for stablecoins and improve the UX of stablecoin-based payment flows
• Improving our consumer-targeted marketing efforts
• Improve the decentralisation of our off-chain components
• Continuing to operate, secure and keep the bridge up to date

has been strategically chosen as critical or high priority items we need for Polkadot adoption and success.

In terms of cost, I avoid looking at developer rates, but rather at deliverables. I believe Treasury should not fund salaries, but results. Within that frame of analysis I estimate the requested ~$1.87M is similar to what it would cost Parity to deliver the roadmap above, ergo I support it.

One other thing I want to see more of across Treasury spendings is payment models similar with the one here where the funding is split into initial payment plus a completion DOT payment dependent on measurable results/deliverables. This makes funding accountable on results and deliveries, and incentivizes the team to work towards DOT token economic growth.

PolkaWorld Vote: NAY

Two-thirds opposed, one-third abstained.

Opponents believe that, in the breakdown section, the personnel costs alone are far above market rates—$1 million allocated for just five developers. Although we have held online meetings, the team feels that compared to other vc projects, Snowbridge should receive these funds since Snowbridge gave up other financing opportunities. However, it is difficult for the community to accept this. The requirements for public common-good projects and financing vc projects are not necessarily the same. Funds requested from the Treasury should only cover basic costs. If the team believes higher compensation is needed, we think it should reconsidering other financing options.

Overall, as a team that has been part of the Polkadot ecosystem for five years and is gradually delivering product capabilities, we understand the community should support such projects, but:

1.	The total amount requested is quite high, and the team is asking the Treasury to commit to future payments in advance, which we find unreasonable.
2.	The team has already received $8 million in funding over the past year. For a team of only five people, this should be sufficient to develop and deliver a launch-ready product. We need to consider cost-effectiveness.
3.	Apart from development, other administrative expenses should not be covered by the Treasury. The Treasury should fund development work, not help operate the team as a company.

See more feedback here.

If only there were a working bridge on Polkadot, it would help bring in stablecoin liquidity. Alas, there is not.

I recognize the necessity of the work, the value in it, and the merit and track record of the team. That aside, I’m copying below a couple of questions I shared in the Permanence public Telegram chat, which I believe are due given the size of the ask and the community’s recent conservative stance on the treasury.

1. There's a ~$1.25M budget item for engineering costs (company margin included), and an additional ~$0.35M bonus for timely delivery if I understand correctly, totalling $1.6M. Can you share with us how many engineers are contributing to the codebase, for comparison with the ecosystem rates?
   
   The GitHub repository shows 5 active contributors over the last year, with ParthDesai looking more like an occasional contributor, so I think we can say 4, the rest being negligible.
2. The proposal lists $35K travel expense cost for conferences, which most professionals usually pay out of pocket. To be honest, I find it similar to a recent proposer trying to charge for his laptop and software subscriptions, costs for which he was seriously scrutinized. Do you find it fair to charge for these expenses when your personnel already seem well-compensated, and the company too, through margins?
3. There’s also a $142K charge for “expected costs for company tooling, software, developer tools and development/testing infrastructure per year.” Is there a breakdown for this item?
4. You continuously emphasize that Snowbridge is Polkadot common good when scrutinized on costs (compared to Hyperbridge, for instance), yet there's the 20% "company" margin on all engineering costs. To me, it sounds a bit contradictory, presenting Snowbridge as a common-good/protocol while charging like a company.
5. Last but not least, the proposal states you'll "be able to reduce the size of the team and costs and cover all engineering, operations, audit, gas and infrastructure costs to maintain Snowbridge indefinitely for under $1M per year." Given the scrutiny the proposal has received (this being the 3rd submission), why didn’t you consider acting on this sooner and saving some treasury resources?

Regards,
kukabi | Helikon

Dear Proposer,

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

The Big Spender track requires 60% quorum 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 six aye and one nay votes from ten available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Most voters supported the proposal after noting improvements such as stablecoin payments, revised advance payment schedules, and responses to prior feedback. One voter remained concerned about whether Polkadot’s balance would sustain multiple commercial bridges, while another pointed out that Parity’s internal costs would be similar. Adjustments to manage payments more cautiously and plans to begin Ethereum L2 integration post-Snowbridge V2 prompted a modified stance from a voter who initially opposed the scheduling priorities. Although some expressed reservations about cost estimates and overall pricing, and two abstained owing to uncertainties, the general sentiment leaned toward cautiously endorsing 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 votes NAY

According to our voting rules, any big spender proposal requires 80% approval to pass. In this case, there was one vote in favor, one against, and one abstention. Since we calculate approval rate based only on supporting votes, the final outcome is NAY.

Opponents acknowledged that Snowbridge has been part of the Polkadot community for five years and is now beginning to demonstrate real product capabilities, so the ecosystem should support such a project. However:
• The requested amount is very high and asks the Treasury to pre-commit future payments, which we consider unreasonable.
• The team already received $8M in the past year. For a five-person team, that should be sufficient to continue development for a long time and deliver a production-ready product. Yet they are requesting even more funding, which raises questions about cost-effectiveness.
• Beyond development, administrative or operational expenses should not be covered by the Treasury. The Treasury exists to fund product development, not to subsidize running a private company.

The abstainer stressed the undeniable importance of Snowbridge within the Polkadot ecosystem, but noted that the budget is still very high and it remains unclear whether the ROI justifies it.

You can read the full feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

[comment deleted]

Helikon's comment remains relevant as to the need for the price tag of telemetry, travel and others.
Pros:
The team has listened to most of the feedback from previous funding attempts and Snowbridge has become a needed tool specially for ETH.
Note:
Hopefully funding also comes from other teams directly benefited by this and not only from Polkadot's treasury in the future.

Disclaimer:
Our modeling includes more than 1000 non-linguistic parameters so these are only verbal observations also included in the vote calculations and they are not an extensive review of the full rationale behind this vote.