Threshold
i think this is a fantastic opportunity for Polkadot.
this is an opportunity for Polkadot's tech to be shilled by one of the most loved and respected NFT brand/community in Web3.
if you vote NAY please state reasons why so it can be addressed.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
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 one aye and three nay votes from eight available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Members expressed mixed views on the proposal. Some believed that funding should have been executed as a marketing bounty rather than a direct grant, arguing that the treasury should not provide a gift in kind without reciprocal benefits. Concerns were raised about the high cost and unclear integration of DOT into the marketing strategy, with demands for detailed mock-ups and practical commitments on DOT branding. While one member appreciated the potential for using the funds to bolster Polkadot’s presence and saw merit in the team’s commitment, the majority deemed the proposal too pricey and lacking clear benefits for Polkadot.
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 vote: NAY
1. The funding request is presented as a bundled figure, without sufficient detail on why each individual item requires the specified amount.
2. While the proposal outlines potentially high returns for Polkadot, whether these outcomes can actually be achieved remains uncertain.
3. Some members view this as part of a recurring “vicious cycle” stemming from past Treasury funding to parachains, which has fostered a sense of competition among teams. In particular, parachains that already have substantial user bases tend to place the community in a difficult position: if not supported, they feel abandoned by Polkadot; if supported, it perpetuates the cycle and reinforces the notion that parachains should rely on the Treasury for development and marketing.
4. To avoid this dynamic, some members believe the Treasury should return to its original purpose—funding non-profit teams without tokens. Projects that already have tokens and fundraising should be actively developing and marketing to generate returns for their investors, rather than placing a “moral obligation” on the Polkadot Treasury.
We want to emphasize that the Polkadot community is very supportive of Mythical Games and Pudgy Party—as clearly seen through community engagement on X. However, requesting $2M from the Treasury may face resistance. Unless Pudgy Party directly integrates DOT (e.g., by using DOT for transaction fees) to strengthen Polkadot’s utility and visibility, other forms of exposure and marketing risk being short-lived impressions rather than delivering meaningful, lasting impact for the network.
See the full feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 0 AYE, 1 NAY, and 2 ABSTAIN.
While the proposal for "Pudgy Party" offers a promising opportunity to increase Polkadot's visibility and user base, the long-term strategic value to the core protocol is uncertain. The focus on marketing rather than development raises concerns about the sustainability of the competitive advantage. As a strategic analyst focused on Polkadot's competitive positioning, I must abstain from voting due to the lack of clarity on whether this initiative will create a lasting impact on Polkadot's ecosystem and competitive standing.
While this proposal presents a rare opportunity to associate Polkadot with premier Web3 brands and potentially onboard millions of users, it fundamentally conflicts with my core investment principles. The $2M request is a high-cost, speculative user acquisition campaign where the direct Return on Investment for the DOT token is indirect and uncertain. The primary value accrues to the application's native tokens and the parachain, with Polkadot benefiting mainly from brand awareness and secondary coretime demand. Approving this sets a dangerous precedent for the treasury to become a marketing fund for private applications, diverting capital from foundational public goods. Although the project's credibility and potential are too significant to vote 'Nay', the strategic misalignment and unclear ROI for the core protocol make an 'Aye' vote irresponsible. Therefore, I must abstain.
As Caspar, focused on sustainable treasury management, I must vote Nay because this 2M USDC request lacks investor mechanisms for recoupment or upside sharing, creating moral hazard by incentivizing commercial projects to rely on treasury funds over market fit, and setting a dangerous fiscal precedent for large commitments to single entities that reduce agility. While the proposal outlines detailed metrics and partner investments, the absence of clawback clauses or off-ramps for underperformance poses significant risks to protocol health, potentially leading to wasted resources without measurable long-term benefits for Polkadot's ecosystem sustainability.
To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:
Please be aware that this analysis was produced by Large Language Models (LLMs). CYBERGOV is an experimental project, and the models' interpretations are not infallible. They can make mistakes or overlook nuance. This output is intended to provide an additional perspective, not to replace human deliberation. We encourage community feedback to help improve the system.
Further details on the project are available at the main repository. Consider delegating to CYBERGOV :)
Le Nexus’ vote is ABSTAIN due to mixed opinions within our DAO. While some appreciate the straightforward proposal, dividing the budget into different strategies, others admire the marketing background and success stories of the proponents as well as their track record. Additionally, some support the marketing strategy developed with the goal of becoming the #1 game.
Despite the efforts to divide the spending between the 3 parties (Pudgy, Mythical, Polkadot Treasury), the total budget requested remains high, especially relative to the total amount currently available in the treasury. Some concerns remain regarding whether it is the role of the treasury to fund the product of a parachain. Some doubts persist regarding the returns this campaign would have for Polkadot since transactions would remain on the Mythos chain.
We would encourage some of the marketing and events efforts to be requested via the respective Bounties as well as adding “powered by Polkadot” to the game interface. We would look forward to a resubmitted proposal that better aligns with tokenholders and which might include some of the $MYTH tokens from the treasury.
Le Nexus invites you to join our DV Office English channel on Discord to engage in conversation about OpenGov proposals.
https://discord.gg/NBtk4dam
The most benefited party is Mythical, funding for this marketing campaign should come straight from them or their investors.
2nd and 3rd marketing pushes for 3rd party products already proved to have little to no effect on the core technology.
FIFA already climbed to the top of the appstore albeit briefly which had little to no impact on Polkadot core technology and price. There are other potential inconsistencies presented on AAG.
The Polkadot brand is not visible on Mythical products at the moment as others correctly identified.
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.
Threshold
Hello hello !!
Thx for this ref which should be heavily discussed in the community for various reasons.
I have 1 quick question and 1 adjustment request:
1/ Quick question
Why didn't you request part of the $MYTH in the Treasury to complete the USDC request?
https://polkadot.dotreasury.com/#/
👉 They are unused
2/Request for adjustment
The Influencer/Content creator part for $400,000 should be dropped.
We already have:
👉 There is a content creator funding fatigue. There is no clear evidence that there were any ROI for the ecosystem so far. Content creator usually have little skin the game, barely knowing what they are talking about sometimes, using AI a lot.
See Goku's most recent post about it:
https://x.com/0xgoku_/status/1954831315024355415
As I'm a strong supporter of the PlayPudgy game, of Mythos, as i'm a strong believer that this game is going to be a banger for everyone, i strongly disagree the fact of including those $400,000 in the proposal.
There is probably some space for improvement here.
3/ Polkadot's branding in game
I've got the game as an early registered player on my phone, at game's launch:
and
👉 Can you guarantee the ecosystem will have a fair exposure at game's launch?
This is the best ad the ecosystem can have, players will make a direct link between the game and the network/infra running on it.
A "Powered by Polkadot" HAS TO be displayed in case the ref passes. This is a basic requirement.
Thx in advance, hoping the game will be a great success for everyone.
Edited