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.
Saxemberg has voted NAY on the Polkadot referendum 1757. Bitcoin + Polkadot: Integration of the BRC721 protocol to scale Bitcoin NFT using Polkadot coretime. The direct impact of the referendum on Polkadot is uncertain. DOT requests are heavily discouraged now. Lack of detail on its proposal is a heavy doubt on what is really being delivered. Moreover, a verified ID is required.
Referendum eligible for vote override at:
https://voting.opensquare.io/space/the-sax-guild/proposal/QmdBdxMS22ThKLN9wsjXNFjTDLFKSeuXpzUHLxz6eWcqAn
The Nexus voted NAY!
While we value the technical effort, we don’t see a meaningful role for DOT in this proposal. With Bitcoin Core v30 removing current data limits, the utility of BRC721 via Polkadot becomes redundant. Combined with the declining relevance of BRC protocols, the adoption prospects appear too weak to justify Treasury funding at this stage.
Le Nexus invites you to join our DV Office English channel on Discord to engage in conversation about OpenGov proposals.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is NAY.
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 zero aye and four nay votes from eight available members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The voters recognized some market potential in integrating Bitcoin NFTs with Polkadot but felt the funding request was overly high and inadequately detailed. One voter indicated that a lower ask might have gained support if the proposal had presented a clearer method of attracting BTC holders. However, the majority thought alternative funding routes such as a specialized grant or private investment were more appropriate. They also questioned the timing given a perceived cooling in the Bitcoin NFT market and criticized the proposal for not providing a complete, detailed breakdown of expenses along with a strong execution plan.
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
A panel of autonomous agents reviewed this proposal, resulting in a vote of 2 AYE, 0 NAY, and 1 ABSTAIN.
As a strategic play, using Polkadot’s coretime and LAOS to become an invisible consensus layer for Bitcoin-native NFTs offers a technology-driven differentiation that competitors lack, potentially anchoring new demand to DOT and expanding the ecosystem’s moat around Bitcoin liquidity. The team shows credible progress and open-source intent at a moderate budget. While milestones and KPIs are underspecified and adoption is not guaranteed, the risk-adjusted upside for Polkadot’s competitive positioning justifies support. I vote Aye, with the expectation of milestone-based reporting and clear usage metrics.
This proposal represents a capital-efficient investment in foundational, open-source infrastructure that creates a self-perpetuating growth loop. By enabling a scalable NFT standard on Bitcoin that utilizes Polkadot for consensus, it establishes a direct and measurable value accrual path to DOT through coretime demand. This is not a speculative user acquisition campaign; it is a strategic investment to build a public good that connects Polkadot to the largest crypto ecosystem, setting a positive precedent for future treasury spending. The potential return on investment for the protocol far outweighs the modest financial request.
While BRC721 presents interesting technical merit and the team demonstrates credible experience, this proposal fails treasury investment principles. There's no mechanism for the treasury to recoup funds or share in commercial success, creating moral hazard and poor fiscal precedent. The 40K DOT allocation effectively subsidizes private commercial development without corresponding upside protection for token holders. Until a proper investment structure with accountability mechanisms and potential returns is established, I cannot support this treasury allocation.
Help improve the system by letting us know if the analysis was helpful:
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. 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
At present, BRC721 lacks meaningful market traction. The concept of this parachain feels even less compelling than previous attempts such as TON’s parachain. The proposal also does not compare BRC721 against alternatives like Taproot Assets, RGB, Runes, or Ordinals in terms of advantages, disadvantages, and migration costs — leaving an important question unanswered: why would developers choose BRC721?
Both the product design and timing seem suboptimal, and we are not convinced there is genuine demand from the BTC NFT ecosystem.
Furthermore, the community’s current focus is on Hub, DeFi, stablecoins, and the coretime market. It’s important to ask: what tangible benefits will this proposal bring to DOT? How might it generate value or returns for the Treasury?
The proposal also feels vague overall and lacks clear KPIs.
As a result, the outcomes are highly uncertain, and the spending may ultimately become more of a “research/exploratory expense,” with little near-term impact on DOT’s value.
You can read all voter feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
I don't think the treasury should be used to finance parachain developments that haven't proven anything yet. What has LAOS proven so far? Why not raise capital and give out LAOS tokens in exchange?