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.