- Referenda/
- Wish For Change/
- #1761/
Should Polkadot Hub have NATIVE pUSD based on the Honzon Protocol?
Nay!
1.Acala team is never trust worthy! They found excuse on hack(which wasn't at all) and didn't conpensate the users and publish the following correct action to prevent similar disaster.
2.The operation mechanism is not well designed! Who will operate the protocol? What measures will be taken to secure the collateral founds? How to liquidate the collateral?
3.The honzon protocol doesn't fit the "stable-ish" type. How to bear the volitle of DOT price? How to use the stablecoin in natvie ecosystem?
We understand the need and are willing to support a stablecoin that is not dependent on third parties. However, we believe that no one from Acala should be involved with any stablecoin in the ecosystem, especially a strategic one like this, ever again.
We note that the aUSD issues were caused by a misconfiguration of the liquidity pool rather than problems with the Honzon Protocol, but relying on this protocol from the start is controversial and unfortunate from a PR perspective.
And that name... Just call it USDot...
I agree that Polkadot should have a native stablecoin on Asset Hub. It is a strategic need: it would strengthen the ecosystem, reduce reliance on USDT/USDC, and give the Treasury a more stable and efficient instrument for payments and incentives.
However, we cannot ignore the lessons of the past. The aUSD experiment, based on the same Honzon protocol, failed dramatically, damaging both Acala’s reputation and wider trust in the ecosystem. That episode showed how fragile confidence can be and how costly it is when expectations are not met.
RFC-155 asks tokenholders to decide whether Honzon should once again be the foundation, this time for Polkadot’s official stablecoin. An AYE vote therefore means more than support for a technical design; it means trust that the governance and risk management around Honzon will be strong enough to succeed where aUSD failed.
For me, this trust can only be built under two clear conditions:
it is essential that pUSD is perceived as a genuine fresh start. To achieve this, I believe the project should move forward independently from the Acala team, so that confidence is not burdened by past difficulties with aUSD. A clear and explicit assurance that no member of the Acala team will be involved could serve as a strong signal to the entire community, reinforcing trust and alignment around this initiative.
since RFC-155 directly commits Polkadot to adopting Honzon for its native stablecoin, I would feel reassured if the Technical Fellowship were to clearly assume responsibility for its governance. This includes transparent management of parameters, strong risk controls, and well-defined emergency procedures. In doing so, the Fellowship would give tokenholders the confidence that the system has the oversight it needs to succeed.
With these assurances, I would be prepared to vote AYE. Without them, the risk of repeating past mistakes is too great.
For now, in the absence of full clarity regarding the team that will ultimately be responsible for developing and maintaining this project, I am inclined to vote NAY, while remaining open to reconsider should further assurances be provided.
The inclusion of "the official Polkadot stablecoin" into the Polkadot roadmap where treasury, staking, transactions, payments, etc. would happen, was bound to bring all parties with different stakes on stablecoins into the Opengov arena. We currently hold the view that neither Hollar nor PUSD/USDot will be Genius/MiCA compliant so limiting payments to a single official stable seems like the wrong path. In any event, Saxemberg holds no stake in any stablecoin or has any preference thereof. As a matter of fact, we believe that a multi-asset diversified yielding treasury and payments is a better approach but the current roadmap with a native/official Polkadot stable has already been dictated.
Hence, we will let the people with high stakes on this stablecoin topic, battle it out and we won't be voting against or in favor of any particular implementation and we leave to the teams and people with the respective interests mold this issue and implementation accordingly.
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.
Edited
Nay！
I thought the Polkadot team was developing it, but I didn't expect it to use Acala code. Remember, Acala is dead because of AUSD. With such haste, if there are any problems, Polkadot will also die like Acala. Remember, the Aave v3 code used by Hollar also took about a year to launch.
I understand we need to act fast. I like that, but I still wonder why it wasnt initally suggested to name this USDOT instead of silly pUSD. I actually have no idea if I aye on that name, because i dont want to. but i d aye on the general idea of fast track dot collateralized stablecoin. please enlighten me. thank you very much.
Voting Nay, It feels like we are rushing into making decision on which protocol is the choice to be polkadot Stablecoin. The experience in Acala USD , is still fresh and this require more clarification on what is changed now in the protocol itself which ensure the the same incident does not repeat. For reality check, there is no Stablecoin within Polkadot Parachain which is matured enough to become Polkadot Native Stablecoin. Worst is AUSD did not go good at all, Hollar is there but it is still new . We might want to take this slow.. For the naming part USDot is better than pDOT
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is ABSTAIN.
The Wish For Change track requires more than 60.0% of non-abstain votes according to our voting policy v0.3, and any referendum in which the simple majority of voters abstain, or track-specific majority of voters aye or abstain, receives an abstain vote. This proposal has received one aye and zero nay votes from eight available members, with four members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
The vote reflected mixed feelings about launching a DOT-backed stablecoin on the Polkadot Hub. Some expressed optimism about its potential to boost ecosystem utility and economic sovereignty while applying lessons from previous stablecoin failures. Others voiced reservations primarily due to concerns over management and execution, recalling historical issues with Acala’s stablecoin and unresolved risk management challenges. Although the concept was seen as innovative and beneficial for system payments and treasury operations, prevailing doubts and reputational risks led many to opt for caution by abstaining from a full endorsement.
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
Our members acknowledge the decision to launch an "official" Polkadot Stablecoin, BUT, not at all cost -> It's a strong NAY.
If the aUSD (💀)-Honzon tech based stablecoin may be understandable from a pure tech PoV, it's an engineer decision to rebuild a new stablecoin from the same protocol.
The consequence of such a choice is the worst in term of marketing, and the ecosystem will suffer of another consequent bad buzz.
aUSD-Honzon already doomed the ecosystem once, it's still a scarce for many.
We are not interested in the stablecoin name debate, it's just a cosmetic one.
We are interested in the tech & PR decision.
1/Quick option: start from existing code -> Honzon.
- Advantages: Pragmatic, cost-effective and quick solution.
- Major disadvantage: zero credibility. Marketing problem. Setting the eco up for a new fall.
2/ Intermediate option: fork a stablecoin.
- Advantages: Credibility already established. In the hands of the right people, can be done in less than 6 months.
- Major disadvantage: Not labelled ‘made in Polkadot’, but this seems like a fairly weak argument.
3/ Slow option: Rebuild a stablecoin.
- Advantages: Credibility to be built, but a clean slate.
- Major disadvantage: Nothing will come out for at least 6 months or more. Higer costs to bear.
Questions around the liquidations process should also be clarified.
The decision making should be forged after technical presentations to the community about the different possible solutions and their pro/cons.
-> We would have expected a set of solutions to select and a real discussion in the eco.
If pUSD is designed to be "THE OFFICIAL STABLECOIN", why just a unique hurried solution with no debate around the possible solutions in terms of cost, timeline, security and marketing?
This WFC is probably a hasty attempt to solve DOT demand issues so far.
Edited
I see a lot of criticism here about Honzon pUSD proposal and references to the aUSD incident in 2022, but let’s put this in perspective. Crypto history is full of far bigger mistakes — Ethereum lost ~$60M in the DAO hack, Solana faced multiple full network outages, Uniswap had smart contract bugs at launch, PancakeSwap suffered exploits early on, and even the largest exchanges like Binance or Coinbase have experienced downtime and security incidents. All of them recovered, adapted, and emerged stronger, shaping the ecosystem as leaders.
Acala is no different. They learned from aUSD, continued developing at the cutting edge of DeFi, and their leadership in the JAM Era of Polkadot is already evident. Their team has consistently shown resilience, innovation, and vision, and these qualities will make them one of the key pillars of the next JAM Era.
Criticism based solely on past mistakes ignores context, technical progress, and the fact that mistakes in crypto are inevitable — it’s how a team responds that defines competence. Acala responded wisely, demonstrated resilience, and continues to build, innovate, and lead. If your understanding of crypto is limited to one incident, you’re missing the bigger picture: Acala is and will remain a central force in shaping the future of Polkadot. Perspective matters — history matters — and fear or hate doesn’t change facts.”
Edited
TruthDAO voted NAY
We believe there are still too many unclear details surrounding pUSD at this stage.
Bringing a WFC proposal to a community vote now feels premature — it would be better to wait until the technical discussions conclude and a more mature, fully developed plan is ready before moving forward with a WFC referendum.
👉 See all voter feedback here.
📖Truth DAO Governance Statement
💭 Email: open@truthdao.cn, Telegram
🗳️ Delegate
"The implementation follows the Honzon protocol pioneered by Acala".... Acala’s stablecoin (aUSD) launch was a complete disaster and it really killed my trust in the team. I don’t see myself supporting their project anymore. What I’d love to see is a proper, reliable, native solution. Honestly, it’s frustrating that with all the talent in the Polkadot/Substrate space, nobody has managed to build something better yet.