Encode Club Tranche 3 Funding Request

PolkaWorld Vote: NAY

Please provide a detailed breakdown of the fund usage. The current proposal’s financial details are too vague, making it difficult to determine how the funds are being allocated. The budget section is overly unclear and requires a clearer version to properly assess its reasonableness.

See all feedback here.

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 seven aye and zero nay votes from ten available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters backed the funding request for Tranche 3, emphasizing that it had been pre-approved and was critical for covering hackathon expenses and facilitating the accelerator's final stage. They noted the time-sensitive nature of inviting hackathon winners and claimed the funds as part of fulfilling the initially agreed contract. While most of the supporters repeatedly referenced the prior approval as justification, one voter abstained, citing uncertainty about the return on investment. Additionally, some expressed concerns regarding the lack of detailed plans for the accelerator program, even though they endorsed completing the funding process.

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, a medium spender proposal requires 60% 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 noted that while the team did provide a supplemental budget table, the categories remain vague, with no clear explanation of what each is for. It also fails to show how much of the team’s resources are actually dedicated to education and hackathons. In short, even with the table, the proposal still feels unclear and lacks proper justification.

Additionally, the proposal only presented data on participation numbers, community size, and event engagement for Phase 2. It did not disclose how many teams have the potential to move into the Accelerator. Since the funding for this third round is meant to fully launch and deliver an 8-week Polkadot Accelerator—transforming developer education and hackathon outcomes into real startups and ecosystem contributions—the team should also provide an estimate of how many hackathon teams are expected to advance into the Accelerator and eventually deliver viable projects.

The abstainer recognized the team’s proven track record in organizing hackathons, but noted that this is already the third round of the Polkadot Accelerator. The lack of clarity on actual team retention and ROI led them to vote Abstain for now.

You can read the full feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate

Le Nexus voted NAY!

Encode has consistently delivered high-quality events and onboarding, and their track record shows strong initial traction. However, as also noted by others in the community, most hackathon projects quickly vanish, and the long-term value for early-stage teams remains unclear.

Even with the additional documents and project lists, there is no transparent evidence of sustained retention or measurable impact beyond participation numbers. Treasury spending must focus on continuity and outcomes, not just activity. Without clearer proof of long-term value creation, we cannot support this final tranche.

Le Nexus invites you to join our DV Office English channel on Discord to engage in conversation about OpenGov proposals.

Concerns about the impact of Encode became evident. It hasn't been able to provide concrete metrics of success from previous funding which amounts to 7 figures.
Lack of interest and need from Encode so much that it let the previous payment expire.
Calls for referendum comments are always a gray area.
There has been little to no deterrence against hackathon hunters from their side.
Their focus is mostly centered on other blockchains even with Polkadot was fully supporting it.

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.