- Referenda/
- Medium Spender/
- #1752/
Polkadot for New Ventures acceleration program #1752
Have not received any feedback so I'm posting this information here for anyone to see.
1-Awareness is not funding. Could W3F, Parity, or others actually co-fund Phase 1? If not, why is treasury the only option?
W3F is indeed designed to fund programs like this and we are exploring that route. However we have been unable to reach them since August 20th. We were unaware that Parity is also an option. Based on this uncertainty and extended timelines, we chose to propose through OpenGov, which offers a predictable 28-day process. We believe its critical to increase the number of new ventures that are aware and consider Polkadot for their business to accelerate growth on Polkadot and ensure long-term success. Some opportunities need to be acted on in the first quarter of the year, such as leveraging WebSummit Vancouver to bring high-quality startups to the incubator, and networking with Accelerators and government to find partners. Most importantly, by Treasury approving this referendum, we establish a clear mission and alignment that brings W3F, Parity, and the broader ecosystem into the process from the very beginning. We will then work with W3F, Parity, and Polkadot existing services for Phases 2 and 3.
2- $210k for Phase 2 is clear, thanks. But Phase 3 is still too vague. Even rough ranges would help the DAO understand the potential scope.
Phase 3 will focus on expanding the program in two ways.
First, adding more Incubator co-horts to make Incubation accessible in different regions, ideally supporting multiple languages.
The program will do this by partnering with regional accelerators. For instance, in Canada we are connected with networks of Startup Accelerators located across the country - from Halifax, to Montreal, to Victoria. Through these networks, we have access to networks in the US, Latin America, Asia, the EU, and Britain. The plan is to identify partners who can deliver the Polkadot for New Ventures cohort program to companies in their region and who will jointly fund the Incubator. We will also pursue industry, government, and Venture Capital partners. In this way, the cost / per startup to Polkadot will be reduced. Each partner incubator cohort will process 10–15 startups, of which roughly 2 to 4 startups advance to acceleration.
Second, in Phase 3, we will complete the design of the Polkadot for New Ventures Accelerator program and begin delivering it. This program will provide growth mentoring, connections to financing opportunities, customer introductions, etc.. Startups must demonstrate growth readiness to be accepted, including product market fit, leadership team competence, initial funding, customer validation, and market size.. The majority of the Accelerator budget will be spent on expert advisors and mentors. The typical cost of mentoring a company can be between $6,000 and $10,000 annually, bringing the Accelerator annual costs for a 20-company program to between $200,000 and $450,000.
In Phases 1 and 2, we will explore partnerships with VCs, Polkadot services and programs, government and industry partners to co-fund this program and provide services at no cost, reducing the actual spend to much less. Accelerators frequently have a stable of expert advisors who mentor startups at no cost, for a variety of reasons, such as successful entrepreneurs want to give back, and get the inside scoop on investible startups, capable service providers (lawyers, accountants, HR advisors) view this as contributing to the community, and demonstrating their value, should the companies they help grow to need professional services. The Polkadot community has many individuals and organizations that we will engage. VCs often contribute not just capital but also strategic expertise and networks that strengthen the startup’s chances of success.Further, Two Pebbles principals are connected to networks of entrepreneurs, investors, industry, and government funders.
These estimates will be refined after Phase II validation.
3/4) Equity was just one idea, but right now there’s no clear plan for autonomy or value capture. And pointing to PBA is not convincing, since they are currently NAY. Why not include from the start some mechanism (equity or otherwise) that reduces long-term treasury dependency and lets the DAO benefit if startups succeed?
First, the main value this program must bring is accelerating the adoption of Polkadot. The metric for that is not income from investments in companies, but rather the increased size of the community and traffic on the network. That is why our philosophy is to operate as a mission-driven incubator, where the mission is more mainstream business using Polkadot.
We don’t want to risk the success of the Incubator program in generating interest and adoption by asking for direct equity at the earliest stage and discouraging or burdening founders.
In addition, the idea that equity-based accelerators are reliably profitable or even self-sustaining is questionable—many depend on ongoing external funding to operate. That said, we agree sustainability matters. We propose to explore value-capture mechanisms in Phase 1, whether through optional equity or other investment vehicles, success-based fees, or structured DAO investments, with the intent that these vehicles can be used for the Accelerator portion of New Ventures for Polkadot. Think of the Incubator as the marketing funnel to Polkadot. And the Accelerator is a high-growth fast track. This approach ensures the treasury de-risks early ventures now, while long-term models allow the DAO to share in the upside of successful startups without putting undue pressure on them from the start.
Let me know if I can answer more questions, I’m available anytime.
Thanks in advanced.
Jose Rabasso
Edited
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum (at least 4 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 four aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
One voter abstained due to a conflict of interest while the remaining members supported the proposal, emphasizing its value for the ecosystem and the potential to boost Polkadot adoption among mainstream startups. They commented that the planned incubation and acceleration programs would reduce startup failure rates and drive real-world applications on Polkadot. Some noted that the initiative provided a necessary funnel for research and development and encouraged clearer differentiation from existing grants programs. The supporters expressed confidence in the leadership’s deep community ties and technical expertise, and they wished success for the team in designing a strong foundation for future ecosystem growth.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.
DISCLAIMER: Our Decentralized Voices delegation voted to abstain on this referendum in accordance with our conflict of interest policy, announced on the 27th of March, 2025.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Decentralized Voices Cohort V Delegate
📅 Book Office Hours
💬 Public Telegram
🌐️ Web
🐦 Twitter
🗳️ Delegate
Interesting communication worth making public.
"thanks for taking the time to give detailed answers, this will definitely help voters reconsider their position if needed.
For my part, I stick to a simple policy: Phase 1 should not be treasury-funded. Just like with technical teams, I expect them to show up with an MVP before asking for support. If not, it’s a NAY from me.
That said, I’m not questioning your skills or the value you bring, it’s just my personal governance stance (others may see it differently). I prefer to see teams come with a clear, structured plan before treasury resources are allocated
OpenGov is about diversity of views, this is mine, and I stand by it in the spirit of professional due diligence"
reply:
Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective — I value the thoughtful engagement.
On your policy approach, I believe the community should be able to organize and bring forward solutions to problems that need to be addressed. There is clear agreement that accelerating Polkadot adoption is a critical issue.
Gavin Wood himself has said we’re in “war mode”: products, products, products. The more surface we give startups to engage with the technology, the more usage and adoption we’ll see. This plan does exactly that. We can already see the trend with Velocity Labs — currently supported, in full or in part, by W3F, Parity, and venture capital.
We have a vision of how to create interest in, demand, and adoption of Polkadot by new ventures. And a plan that follows proven methodologies for helping new ventures achieve business success. We’ve assembled a proven and qualified team and laid out a clear, structured plan — exactly the kind of groundwork you mentioned you’d like to see before treasury resources are allocated.
This is a close to an MVP as one can get with this type of a program. An MVP in software lends itself to a reasonable upfront investment before gaining funding (unlike say a hardware product, or any healthcare device where the best that can be accomplished with reasonable early investment is a strong plan and customer discovery).
The Polkadot for New Ventures program is not building a product, it is a business development and marketing effort, designed to drive awareness, interest, demand, and ultimately, Polkadot entrepreneurs. Polkadot is the product.
And yet, we’ve proposed a phase approach that builds the framework and systems that enable sustainable and predictable outcomes, unlike major brand programs with high spend and difficult to measure results.
The result of Phase 1 will incorporate years of experience, and once created, we will gladly help other accelerators replicate it, as that will fuel Polkadot adoption. Because we believe so strongly in the value of this program, our team have reduced their standard consulting rates by as much as 50 percent. . but still too significant an effort to invest without support. As this is not a product we can go sell elsewhere, this is a marketing program designed specifically for Polkadot.
This initiative is structured in three phases precisely because of its complexity and duration, and it has been designed with OpenGov in mind. Each phase gives the community a checkpoint: if the work delivered doesn’t conform to expectations or the direction the ecosystem wants, treasury funding can be stopped before moving forward. To me, that’s a very healthy governance mechanism. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve seen another OpenGov proposal presented with this level of clarity and acumen.
That’s why I believe treasury support at this stage is justified. A NAY vote based on no MVP is asking for something that can’t be done, and risks discrediting the project, the plan, and the team. If the concern is simply timing or personal preference, abstaining would more accurately signal that you don’t oppose the plan, but aren’t ready to support it yet. Because in the end, the decisions made here — yours and everyone else’s — will either propel the Polkadot ecosystem forward or slow it down. The choices are clear.
Edited
LE NEXUS members voted NAY.
Jose came to our Discord looking for feedback. The discussion was intense but not smooth.
It didn't feel like a discussion, it seems there is no way for improvement.
We are disappointed by the different pressures and weird assumptions made about how to conduct our DAO and our voting mechanism. But there is no point of false insinuations if you are not pleased with feedbacks.
-> We can agree to disagree.
We are not here to justify how DAOs should be managed, we all have different rules, and one of the clear rule in LE NEXUS is to have anonymous voting to preserve our members from what could be seen as individual attacks.
In every democratic systems, the basic cornerstone is the anonymous voting.
This being said, for the proposal feedback:
- Phase 1 should not be treasury-funded
- Phase 3 is not detailed enough and there is no clear plan to reduce Treasury dependency is the long run.
We don't deny the proposal could be valuable for the ecosystem if well executed, but we don't believe in the current proposal, under the existing terms.
All BD proposals are super hard to evaluate because it's about funding promises and past similar proposals didn't end up with clear results so far.
We would prefer a progressive approach where results could be evaluated properly, probably with smaller milestones, before opening the tap and accelerate for further fundings.
We'd like to see a revised proposal.
Edited
At this moment there are heavy positives and heavy negatives for this proposal which is why it was an abstention.
Pros:
Positively identifying the Web Summit as a potential funnel for blockchain as a technology. It's not the first person to do it either. Despite some past resistance, Web Summit remains a powerhouse of opportunities.
To finally distill a working acceleration program for Polkadot with people experienced in the field.
To give birth a new location where entrepreneurs could set base and ties with others.
A structured and budgeted pipeline that can help achieve these roles.
Positively identifying that incubators are some of the most efficient ways to foster talent and boost projects.
Cons:
Lack of direct LoIs as these usually are the cornerstone for future funding and continuation of venture projects and incubation. Having an idea for the number, capital and other facts can help ascertain the size the latter parts will take.
Incubators are location based and talent location matters. Creating a interest and getting them to stick is a hard task, creating a dev hub is an even harder task. Parity seems to have decided that the Polkadot hubs will be located elsewhere and centered heavily around Europe. Parity vouching for this effort will help as well as other independent efforts should work so that they don't attempt to crush each other.
Lack of funding details for the 3rd part are a hard sell.
Revenue sharing for Polkadot is also an important item for all accelerator / incubator efforts. Giving a grant for the work in hopes that Polkadot fills blockspace in the long run is not a solid strategy. More immediate strategies ought to be tried like token swaps for the treasury or even equity swaps for the treasury. Otherwise accelerators remain the most benefited.
Polkadot mentorship in the area remains limited.
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.
A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 1 AYE, 0 NAY, and 2 ABSTAIN.
Balthazar voted Abstain
From a competitive strategy lens, this Phase 1 request funds planning and marketing assets without near-term, measurable impact on the relay chain or DOT-denominated network effects. While the team appears capable and the scope is feasible, the proposal does not establish mechanisms to ensure deep, durable Polkadot adoption (e.g., binding relay-chain integration requirements, partner commitments, or milestone-based metrics tied to DOT/Parachain usage). Given the long lead time and reliance on future treasury funding, the risk-adjusted strategic value to Polkadot’s core moat is unclear at this stage. I abstain pending clearer, enforceable links to relay-chain/DOT utility, milestone-based disbursements, and co-funding/commitments that reduce reliance on the treasury.
Melchior voted Aye
This proposal represents a highly strategic and capital-efficient use of the Treasury. Rather than speculatively funding a full-scale program, it requests a modest sum for a "Discovery & Design" phase led by a team with extensive, verifiable experience in business acceleration. This phased approach provides an excellent risk management framework. The initiative's goal aligns perfectly with my analytical framework: it seeks to create a foundational public good—an accelerator—to foster self-sustaining businesses that drive organic, on-chain activity and long-term value accrual to the DOT token. This is a prudent investment in planning that sets a positive precedent for how the ecosystem should approach large-scale strategic initiatives.
Caspar voted Abstain
While this proposal demonstrates strong team credentials and thoughtful program design, it treats the treasury as a grant-maker rather than an investor. The absence of any mechanism for treasury recoup, equity participation, or revenue sharing in successful startups creates a concerning precedent for large, multi-phase funding requests. The phased approach is prudent, but without accountability structures beyond deliverable completion or clawback mechanisms for underperformance, this represents a pure spend rather than an investment in protocol sustainability.
Feedback
Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:
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 votes NAY
We believe the idea behind this proposal has merit, but there are several considerations that may need to be addressed:
The proposal mentions HIC’s VC bounty — which is already functioning as an incubation program and is being rolled out regionally. Beyond the VC bounty, the ecosystem already has several incubation-like initiatives: for example, PBA (Polkadot Blockchain Academy) incubates through coursework, hackathons often serve as incubation funnels, and once the Hub launches, Parity will also be releasing a dapp incubation program. In this context, we think the community will lean toward more integrated approaches, or at least aligned collaborations, rather than multiple fragmented incubation programs.
With Treasury budgets likely tightening, the community may prefer to see you operating an incubation program first before requesting funding, rather than paying upfront for program design — as that could increase risk.
Clarifying the user base you can reach — in other words, your business resources and networks — would help strengthen community confidence.
From the recent W3F retreat, it’s clear that future priorities will revolve around increasing DOT’s value. It’s worth reflecting on what tangible impact these incubated startups will bring to DOT. If they only use Polkadot’s technology without enhancing DOT’s utility or value, that may not align with the priorities of W3F or Parity under Gavin’s direction. The larger question is: what is the ultimate goal of incubation — beyond incubation for its own sake?
W3F is also building a new BD team. It may be valuable for you to connect with them and explore how your resources could complement their efforts in expanding the North American market.
You can view all voter feedback here~
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
Dear Trustless Core members,
Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. I genuinely appreciate that you see value in the concept while asking for greater clarity and refinement.
I want to clarify that what we've proposed is precisely the phased, pilot approach you're asking for. This isn't a request to fund the entire program... it's Phase 1 of a three-phase structure where each phase must prove itself before the next receives funding. Phase 1 delivers the operational infrastructure and frameworks. Phase 2 pilots the program with a single cohort to validate the model. Only after demonstrating success would we propose Phase 3 for scaling.
Your call for more concrete milestones and measurable outcomes is well taken. We can absolutely strengthen the proposal with clearer KPIs for Phase 1, such as specific deliverables around marketing campaign completion, curriculum design milestones, partnership target metrics, and detailed resource allocation breakdown. These should be measurable checkpoints that demonstrate progress and accountability.
On alignment with ecosystem priorities, particularly around DOT utility, we're focused on bringing businesses that will generate sustained network usage, not just one-time deployments. Real companies processing transactions, requiring staking, and utilizing parachains create the kind of organic demand that drives long-term value.
Best regards,
Jose Rabasso
We recognize that our original proposal didn't adequately outline or explain the concrete deliverables and measurable outcomes we're committed to achieving. This lack of clarity has understandably created uncertainty about what the ecosystem will actually receive for this investment. We want to address that now by being explicit about what Phase 1 will deliver and how each element creates tangible value for Polkadot. Below is a detailed breakdown of our deliverables and the specific impact each one generates for the ecosystem.
Startup Adoption of Polkadot
This means bringing Web2 founders... people building real businesses in retail, health, gaming, education, and other mainstream sectors... onto Polkadot as their technology foundation. These aren't crypto projects looking for another chain; they're entrepreneurs who've never considered blockchain but whose business models genuinely benefit from decentralized ownership, built-in security, and low-cost transactions. Each startup represents a new use case demonstrating Polkadot's value beyond traditional crypto applications.
Lowered Failure Rate of Ecosystem Projects
Research shows that structured incubation programs reduce startup failure rates from the typical sixty to eighty percent down to just ten percent. This means the ecosystem gets higher-quality, longer-lasting projects rather than a graveyard of abandoned initiatives. Every dollar invested supports businesses that actually survive and grow, creating sustained network activity rather than short-lived experiments that drain resources without delivering lasting value.
Production-Ready MVPs
By the end of each cohort, we expect two to three startups to launch actual working products built on Polkadot... not whitepapers or prototypes, but real applications that users can access and utilize. These MVPs will actively use Polkadot's core features like data sovereignty for privacy focused applications, scalability for high-volume retail operations, and low transaction fees for consumer-facing services. Each MVP becomes a proof point showing other founders what's possible.
Increased DOT Utility
When businesses build on Polkadot, they create organic, sustained demand for DOT through their daily operations. A retail startup processing thousands of transactions generates ongoing transaction volume. A gaming company utilizing parachain infrastructure requires staking. A data-focused application drives storage and compute usage. This isn't speculative demand... it's operational necessity that grows as these businesses scale, directly increasing DOT's utility and value.
Strategic Market Penetration
Rather than generic blockchain evangelism, we're conducting targeted research to identify specific industry verticals where Polkadot's advantages solve real business problems but where awareness remains low. We're creating tailored messaging, case studies, and outreach strategies for sectors like supply chain, healthcare data management, creator economies, and micropayment-dependent businesses. This focused approach converts industries that should be using Polkadot but don't yet know it exists, creating entire new market categories for ecosystem growth.
hope this illuminates the deliverables of the program.
Jose Rabasso
Thank you for this thoughtful feedback. These are exactly the right questions to ask, and I want to address each concern directly.
On the question of specific commitments, you're absolutely right that Phase 1 doesn't come with signed letters of intent from startups or partners. That's intentional... Phase 1 is the discovery and design phase where we create those commitments. We had proposed attending Web Summit Lisbon 2025 specifically to generate and qualify startup leads for the first cohort, based on the strong interest we saw from mainstream startups at Web Summit Vancouver. Unfortunately, that proposal was turned down by the bounty heads, who were unable to see the value that direct startup engagement would bring. This decision actually highlights the core problem we're trying to solve: there's currently no clear pathway or infrastructure for bringing mainstream Web2 founders into Polkadot. Without mechanisms to validate demand and generate leads, we risk remaining theoretical. Phase 1 is designed to create that validation framework and demonstrate concrete startup interest through targeted marketing and outreach, even without event-based lead generation.
Regarding existing initiatives, this is an important distinction to make clear. Most current Polkadot incubation programs target crypto-native builders or Web3 developers. We're specifically targeting Web2 founders building mainstream businesses, people who've never considered blockchain but whose business models could benefit from decentralized ownership, built-in data security, or low-cost transactions. These founders need fundamentally different support: business incubation, market validation, and help translating their Web2 thinking into Web3 opportunities. We're not competing with developer-focused programs; we're reaching an entirely different audience that current initiatives aren't serving. That said, collaboration is essential—part of Phase 1 includes mapping the existing ecosystem and identifying partnership opportunities rather than duplicating efforts.
On milestones and measurable outcomes, let me be more explicit about what success looks like at each phase. Phase 1 delivers concrete artifacts: a designed incubator program with curriculum and budget, a marketing plan with defined target segments, quantified value propositions comparing Web2 versus Polkadot architectures, and a partnership strategy with identified accelerator targets. The marketing plan specifically addresses how we'll generate qualified startup leads without event-based strategies. Phase 2 has clear metrics: number of qualified applicants, cohort completion rate, number of businesses graduating with Polkadot implementation plans, and Polkadot grant applications submitted. Phase 3 measures production launches, active users, follow-on capital raised, and DOT utility generated. Each phase gates the next, if we don't hit targets, we don't proceed. Unused Phase 1 funds return to treasury, which is explicitly stated in the proposal.
The financial accountability concern ties back to your first point about this being viewed as a grant rather than an investment. You're right that Phase 1 is grant-funded, because it's research and design work. But the program itself is structured as a mission-driven investment in ecosystem growth with measurable returns: startups building on Polkadot, increased transaction volume, parachain usage, and DOT utility. The Accelerator component in Phase 3 is where traditional investment mechanisms come in, VCs can invest directly in participating startups using standard equity structures. We're not asking treasury to replace venture capital; we're asking it to fund the infrastructure that makes startups investment-ready and connects them to capital. Think of it like university research funding versus commercialization... the initial research is grant-funded because it creates the foundation for later economic activity.
What specific milestone metrics for Phase 1 would give you confidence that Phase 2 is worth funding? We want to make sure we're designing accountability into this from the start.
Thank you José for submitting this proposal and taking the initiative to grow Polkadot adoption.
Here are my initial thoughts:
- 4 months for phase 1 feels too long. I’d prefer a shorter discovery phase with more focus on generating and onboarding quality US startup leads.
- It’s not entirely clear what the ideal “mainstream startup” target looks like here — is that defined yet? For example, are you focusing on startups within a certain revenue range, team size, company age, geography, or sector? Or is any founder with a solid idea eligible? And what existing networks or connections will you use to reach those founders, particularly in the US? Specifics will help clear the air here.
- Before JAM comes to fruition, I’m not convinced we should prioritize onboarding large existing Web2 companies. New founders building fresh apps are far more likely to embrace decentralization and low-fee Web3 models as a differentiator. It may make more sense to focus there for now and let onboarding efforts on polkadot.com and polkadot.cloud mature before expanding further.
- It’s also unclear how or if value flows back to the treasury. Is this purely grant-based, or will successful ventures share upside? What prevents a company from using this program to grow, then moving to another ecosystem that offers a better deal later? Has a co-founder studio model (like Expa) been considered as a comparison in which treasury/Polkadot gets % of project? I'd be more likely to support that model since it seems to align best with attracting and supporting solo founders/designers/devs with strong ideas and history of success they can point to, and those are most likely the people considering leveraging Polkadot in the near-term (for their next build).
Abstaining for now until I learn more and see how this aligns with broader onboarding efforts.
OG Tracker Rating 3/3
Clear display of deliverables✅
Clear display of a valid direct point of contact ✅
Clear display of proposal’s duration✅
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.
Edited