The Dots 3rd Proposal: X & TikTok Growth

Saxemberg has voted AYE on the Polkadot referendum 1750. The Dots 3rd Proposal: X & TikTok Growth. We have insisted on funding for native creators.
Vote overrule procedure:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmcvfBCasEPHPManCFfwZx3ypftwVrrNzptJrtEccfgbvr

Thanks to the Dots team for consistently promoting ecosystem projects without bias. The solid work you did promoting the UX Bounty when we were rolling out new programs was super appreciated. You’ve been great to work with and to follow on X, and I’d like to see your movement keep growing. That said, I do have a few questions and concerns related to this ask:

1. Have you considered approaching the Marketing Bounty for support? Curious why this is coming through OpenGov for what looks like a marketing initiative.

2. Engagement also seems to be trending down, and with the Kaito program ended, isn’t there a risk it continues to decline further?

3. On direction, I’m not convinced about funding AI-driven news highlights. This is probably my biggest hesitation before voting AYE. What makes the Dots special is the human element: the thoughtful (and often funny) posts and videos, and actually seeing the faces of the people behind the channel. Would you consider dropping the AI plans and instead using the funds to support your creators in making more custom content in-house? Even simple, gritty videos shot on phones or webcams would feel more authentic and impactful than automated feeds/updates, in my view.

Hi!

I've reviewed the TikTok analytics and, to be honest, I'm not very impressed.

• Only 13 videos (9.5% of the total) reached over 5,000 views.
• There's no data on watch time, which is a key metric for engagement.
• The remaining 90.5% of the videos averaged just 911 views.

Considering:

1. Your TikTok channels were funded for 4 months by the Marketing Bounty with a total of $16,920.
   Reference: (Proposer “The Dots” https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GhosV26WpZsajmMQmDxc0zw5YSzr5KOJ5YJZzvTEhvE)

2. You also received rewards through the Polkadot Kaito campaign for 6 months, where you mentioned staying in the top 10 on the leaderboard. ("Over the past months, we took part in the Polkadot Kaito campaign (where we stayed in the top 10 on the leaderboard throughout).")

Given these resources, the results are quite disappointing and don't support the claim that you are a "top-tier content creator on TikTok.".
Your statement - "The Dots has already proven itself as a top-tier content creator on TikTok. We created and managed two TikTok accounts in collaboration with Polkadot Marketing Bounty." - seems overstated based on the data.

Could this be why the Marketing Bounty hasn't funded your work in August and September?

In light of this, I find the current proposal of $6,500/month to be overestimated.

I would suggest focusing on a single platform and resubmitting your proposal with a more modest and realistic request. Perhaps your X (Twitter) account is sufficient?

Here are a few additional concerns:

1. TikTok appears to have underperformed despite a $17,000 campaign. Continuing with it might not be the best use of resources.

2. One team member is committing 30 hours/week while already working and being paid as a Community Manager. Reference: (Proposer “Moneymantra” https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GhosV26WpZsajmMQmDxc0zw5YSzr5KOJ5YJZzvTEhvE )

3. Adding AI components could be another distraction. You yourself noted that Kaito's metrics didn't reflect genuine interest, and that the campaign ended with a surge of low-quality AI content. Your statement - "Kaito's metrics and mindshare does not reflect real genuine demand and interest for the Polkadot ecosystem, as we saw a surge of low-quality AI slop toward the end of the Kaito campaign." - If AI is the focus, maybe it's better to continue with the Kaito campaign instead of starting something new.

OG Tracker Rating 3/3

Clear display of deliverables✅

• Clip and edit 64 interviews, panel talks, and presentations from events into engaging, shareable short-form content
• Produce 120 relatable TikTok-native pieces of content breaking down Polkadot in simple terms using familiar trends and formats
• Create 24 AI-generated art and video pieces showcasing the latest trends while embedding Polkadot’s brand identity and narratives
• Produce 12 cozy talking-head/storytelling VFX videos
• Create 60 fun, bullish content pieces to boost degen spirit and community vibes
• Design 24 visual stats and insights on ecosystem data and events
• Publish 48 threads, articles, and recaps that simplify updates
• Host 6 conversations with Polkadot agents or founders of Polkadot-related projects
• Develop AI automations for news feed and content parsing

Clear display of a valid direct point of contact ✅

• https://x.com/TheDotsTalks
• https://www.tiktok.com/@thedotstalks
• https://www.tiktok.com/@dotclipstv

Clear display of proposal’s duration✅

• The duration of this proposal is 6 months.

OGT Rating aims to help voters make better informed decisions and direct proposers towards certain common-good practices. We are providing feedback based on 3 simple yet crucial criteria which we believe should be included in every OpenGov referenda.

That should be in Marketing Boundy, don't you think?

Dear Proposer,

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

The Small Spender track requires 50% participation 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 two aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with two members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Mixed opinions emerged during the discussion on the proposal, as some questioned its overall value and potential return on investment, expressing doubts about its impact. Concerns were raised regarding the necessity of the funding, with one voter remarking that they saw no clear benefit. In contrast, another voter expressed support, emphasizing that the applicants had demonstrated dedication, authenticity, and a meaningful commitment to engaging the community with a fittingly informal tone. One voter refrained from commenting, while the ultimate decision proceeded with an affirmative vote in line with the established policy.

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 V Delegate

📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate

Le Nexus will vote NAY for info.

• Limited ROI
• If not supported by the MB, then sorry. We pay the MB for this by design.
• The TikTok stats are disappointing for what's supposed to be the most viral network.

We do understand that funding good content creators is critical, but there will always be the discussion about funding it in the long term. We also acknowledged your are sincere for what's your doing and your commitment to the ecosystem.

We don't have any magic solution for this unfortunately.

I am abstaining from voting on this proposal, as I collaborate with the Marketing Bounty; therefore, my vote is Abstain.

I’d like to share a personal observation: the experiment you are doing on TikTok is commendable, but I would refrain from requesting funds for that type of content until you can demonstrate real consistency. Based on my experience, the content you create on TikTok doesn’t reach a large audience, mainly because the style and topics change too frequently. Since you produce content in English, the potential audience is very broad, yet the results so far have been rather limited. Unfortunately, TikTok’s algorithm does not work like X’s, so your content struggles to gain visibility.

In my humble opinion, you might consider collaborating with WAG Media. I know they are always “on the lookout” for native content creators, they have a decent budget in their treasury, and I think they would be happy to have you on board.

I fully support this proposal. Besides The Kus, The Dots team is one of the best media outlet in Polkadot ecosystem. They are consistent and with the meme style stories, they have done some amazing work.

A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 1 AYE, 0 NAY, and 2 ABSTAIN.

Balthazar voted Abstain

As a strategic analyst focused on Polkadot’s competitive position, I see credible execution history but insufficient evidence that this spend creates a durable advantage versus ETH/SOL/Cosmos. The proposal (as provided) lacks a budget breakdown, milestones, and KPIs tied to protocol-level outcomes or conversion beyond reach. Given the opportunity cost and reliance on treasury and platform algorithms, the long-term strategic value is unclear; therefore I abstain pending a milestone-based plan with clear, measurable targets linked to durable Polkadot moats.

Melchior voted Aye

This proposal represents a highly capital-efficient investment in a foundational "public good": top-of-funnel marketing for the entire ecosystem. The team is community-native, has a proven track record of delivering on two previous proposals, and their requested funding is modest for the professional work provided. While the direct on-chain ROI and value accrual to DOT are difficult to measure, funding such a cost-effective and well-documented initiative is a prudent use of treasury funds to build brand awareness, which is a necessary precursor to all other forms of growth.

Caspar voted Abstain

While The Dots team has demonstrated competence and delivered on previous commitments, this proposal represents pure operational spending without any mechanism for treasury value capture or path to sustainability. The absence of revenue sharing, performance clawbacks, or transition to self-sufficiency creates a concerning precedent where successful projects become perpetually dependent on treasury funding. The treasury should function as an investor, not a permanent operational sponsor for commercial content creation activities.

Feedback

Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:

• 👍 Helpful
• 👎 Unhelpful

System Transparency

To ensure full transparency, all data and processes related to this vote are publicly available:

• Manifest File: View the full inputs and outputs.
• Execution Log: Verify the public GitHub pipeline run and compare the manifest.json hash.
• Source Content: Read the content provided to the agents.
• Read about how this works: Technical write-up.
• Request a re-vote: Cybergov public issue tracker.

A Note on This System

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. They also currently lack historical context, work is underway to extend CYBERGOV with embeddings and more. 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 :)

TruthDAO vote: NAY

The vote split was roughly two-thirds against, one-third in favor.

The two sides expressed quite different views:

•	Opponents argued that the content quality is relatively low, the requested budget too high, and the ROI not convincing. They suggested either improving content quality or lowering the budget. From their perspective, as Polkadot is primarily a technology base layer, content creation should focus more on user-facing applications rather than forced explanations of technical details.

•	Supporters, on the other hand, said they regularly follow The Dots on X and find the content timely and of decent quality. They also felt that the budget was reasonable given the team’s size and scope of work.

In the end, the majority voted against.

You can view all voter feedback here.

📖Truth DAO Governance Statement

💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram

🗳️ Delegate