Interesting project, could be a good replacement for [Polkadot.js](https://polkadot.js.org/). There's [Polkadot-API](https://polkadot-api.github.io/polkadot-api-docs/) that is also trying to be the successor to PJS. How does this library differ and does it offer anything that Polkadot-API doesn't?

Hey [@Thang X. Vu](/user/15uJb5EtttE7SUgBLDZKByV6S5YD4uyV7Zm1McYx4VGsBV44)  Thank you Sir for building this. It will surely help the developer in our ecosystem. Sharing it on the [AwesomeDo](https://github.com/haquefardeen/awesome-dot) repository would be a fantastic way to increase its exposure within the developer community.

[@12uo...L7fG](12uoF3PZxDBURLVqj5DAJiyUADiqdCYwhq27wAmr2ML1L7fG-polkadot) Thank you for the suggestion, AwesomeDot looks like a great central place to explore about Polkadot. I will definitely create a PR to add Dedot.

I support this idea but in my opinion, this proposal needs to be adjusted:

1. The rate of $120/hour is too high for a new project without any evidence of adoption. You should adjust the rate to be similar to the level approved by the W3F Grant before, which will be more appropriate, and come back with a higher rate once it has proven adoption through being used in reputable Polkadot projects. All proposals with high rates are proposals that have proven effective in the past.
2. You have developed many other projects in the past, but the projects all had no adoption and were abandoned midway. You need to demonstrate the ability to commit to this project instead of just taking money and not putting any effort into getting the project to market. In my opinion, to prove that you are truly committed to this project, make an effort to introduce it to other projects in the Polkadot ecosystem and come back with a retroactive proposal when it has proven necessary and applicable in many real projects. In my opinion, your W3F grant funding before is enough to complete testing, now let's bring it to developers.

[@14fv...gnSY](14fvrw92d9X4JcJ2a65i9KMkgHgN4y4yjVjHHRGPSxnUgnSY-polkadot) 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We'd to address your concerns and provide additional context:
- We think that the proposed rate of $120/hour is reasonable given the expertise for a project with this complexity. Comparable to other new projects that have received even higher rates, such as [Reactive DOT](https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/812) at $140/hour and [Polkadot-API](https://polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/467) at €150/hour. The initial W3F grant was intended for the bootstrapping phase to validate and demonstrate the project's functionality.
- As stated in the proposal, aside from the initial 3-month funding, we have been self-funding Dedot to work on crucial integrations such as new JSON-RPC specs and ink! Contracts API. This demonstrates our long-term commitment to this project and our focus on making a significant impact within the ecosystem.
- In the rapidly evolving field of blockchain technology, it's essential for small teams to experiment with various ideas to find a niche where they can make the most impact. While we have experimented with other projects, we have identified Dedot as the one where we possess the expertise to deliver and focus on long-term commitment.
- We have introduced Dedot to developers and teams within the ecosystem for feedback. However, Dedot is not yet at a production stage where it can be fully integrated into their projects. It still requires additional refinement and stabilization before it can be used in production environments.
- While retroactive funding is a viable approach, it is more suitable for teams with existing funding pools or corporate backing. As a small team without such resources, we believe that securing funding upfront will enable us to focus on delivering Dedot at its best.




[@Thang X. Vu](15uJb5EtttE7SUgBLDZKByV6S5YD4uyV7Zm1McYx4VGsBV44-polkadot) 
1. PAPI & Reactive DOT have proven their contributions previously at Parity and Talisman. You haven't. These are their first proposals, they are still being delivered regularly and there are efforts to bring products to developers.
2. Your projects have been funded by > $60k, much more than the two projects you used as examples but there are no signals about creating any impact on the ecosystem. All are still just rudimentary versions and don't make any effort to promote it to users. It shows that you've used funds ineffectively. Prove the effectiveness of your fund before making your next proposal. You have received many benefits from the ecosystem (grant, hackathon prize, cost of studying at PBA) but have not proven your contributions. Let's contribute instead of exploiting.
3. The budget you have been granted from W3F and Hackathon is high compared to the costs in your country. If you commit to your project it's enough to make an impact.
4. The cost of living in your country is many times lower than theirs (PAPI, Reactive DOT). Therefore, giving reference data from their project and giving them the same rate is unreasonable. It will make sense when you have proven the effectiveness of your project. So I suggest a retroactive proposal or a more suitable rate for the first proposals.
In general, I still support having more tools to support developers in the ecosystem, but I try to give suggestions to bring long-term benefits to the ecosystem.

[@14fv...gnSY](14fvrw92d9X4JcJ2a65i9KMkgHgN4y4yjVjHHRGPSxnUgnSY-polkadot) 

Thank you for your constructive feedback, we really appreciate it.

We understand your concerns about our contributions and the hourly rate. We'll adjust the hourly rate and go back with a different proposal.

For the record, the total grant we've received is 60k$ from W3F, not > 100$k as you stated.




Who is this elusive developer assisting with Dedot? Could you shed some light on their identity? What's their professional background? How many years of experience do they bring to the table? Do they have a LinkedIn profile we can review? Why wasn't this developer contributing to Dedot while you were attending PBA? And if there's truly a team behind Dedot, why are you the sole beneficiary of this proposal?

From my perspective, this situation appears highly suspicious. Examining the contributions from this supposed developer, the code seems indistinguishable from yours, with an identical coding style and a lack of mutual PR reviews. Anyone with experience in a genuine team environment would find this very questionable.

It genuinely seems like this is a solo project. Could you provide concrete evidence that Tung Wu is a legitimate developer working full-time on this project? As it stands, it looks like an alt account created to fabricate a team presence. If that's the case, you're effectively charging the treasury $240/hour, which is outrageous for a project and team with no proven track record of successful delivery.

[@15DX...Sqkc](15DXBs7VX2df9jedCqYdGbtpPYeMW13PBh3SVmznWDVxSqkc-polkadot) 

Hi there, thank you so much for your feedback and questions.

Me and Tung have been friends and working together for years. For the record, we've been working together on: 
- Coong Wallet: The project got funding from W3F for a website-based wallet
  - [Contributors graph](https://github.com/CoongCrafts/coong-wallet/graphs/contributors), [Tung's contributions](https://github.com/CoongCrafts/coong-wallet/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3A1cedrus+)
  - [PR](https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/pull/1387), [Delivery 1](https://github.com/w3f/Grant-Milestone-Delivery/pull/798), [Delivery 2](https://github.com/w3f/Grant-Milestone-Delivery/pull/882)
- Dedot (initial phase funding from W3F)
  - [Contributors graph](https://github.com/CoongCrafts/coong-wallet/graphs/contributors), [Tung's contributions](https://github.com/dedotdev/dedot/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3A1cedrus+is%3Aclosed)
  - [PR](https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/pull/1907), [Delivery 1](https://github.com/w3f/Grant-Milestone-Delivery/pull/1104), [Delivery 2](https://github.com/w3f/Grant-Milestone-Delivery/pull/1150)
- InSpace.ink: A project that won the first prize of Polkadot Hackathon in Vietnam 2023
  - [Contributors graph: UI Repo](https://github.com/CoongCrafts/inspaciness/graphs/contributors)
  - [Contributors graph: Smart Contract Repo](https://github.com/CoongCrafts/inspace-contracts/graphs/contributors)

At the moment we're not working full-time on Dedot because aside from the initial funding from W3F, we haven't got any other funding yet. We believe in the potential of the project that can make an impact and improve the DX in the ecosystem, that's why we're still working on the project to deliver new functionalities (new json-rpc specs, ink! contracts API, ...) to show our commitment to the success of the project. When I was attending PBA, Tung was researching and working on the [Typed Contracts API](https://github.com/dedotdev/dedot/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3A1cedrus+) feature. 

And with the funding from the treasury, we can fully focus on this full-time to deliver Dedot at its best potential. I hope this helps clear up your confusion regarding our team and the record.



[@Thang X. Vu](15uJb5EtttE7SUgBLDZKByV6S5YD4uyV7Zm1McYx4VGsBV44-polkadot) 

Thank you for your response. However, I find several aspects of your reply unsatisfactory and concerning:

1. **Response Origin**: The reply comes from you, not the mysterious developer, Tung Wu, which doesn't address the core of the skepticism around their existence. Why hasn’t Tung Wu directly addressed these concerns? If he is genuinely involved, he should be able to speak for himself and provide clarification.

2. **Lack of Background Information**: There’s no detailed background provided for Tung Wu. What specific experience does he have beyond these collaborations? How many years has he been in the field? Without this information, it’s hard to validate his credentials and to justify a salary this high.

3. **Evidence of Existence**: There’s no tangible evidence that Tung Wu is a real person. Can you provide a LinkedIn profile, portfolio, or any other professional documentation that confirms his identity and experience?

4. **Team Beneficiary**: If this is truly a team effort, why are you the sole beneficiary of the proposal? This discrepancy raises further doubts about the authenticity of the team structure.

5. **Proof of Collaboration**: Simply citing project collaborations and PRs isn’t sufficient. Anyone could create an alt account to simulate contributions. Can you provide verifiable proof that Tung Wu is an independent entity and not an alt account?

Without clear evidence that Tung Wu is a legitimate, independent developer, this situation continues to appear highly suspicious. To dispel these doubts, please provide concrete proof of Tung Wu's existence and his full-time involvement in the project. This includes professional profiles, contact information, and a direct response from Tung Wu addressing these concerns.

Failing to provide this information will only reinforce the perception that this is a one-man show, and that the treasury is being charged exorbitantly for a project with no verified team presence or track record of successful delivery.

Thank you everyone a lot for your constructive feedback. We decided to discontinue this proposal and will go back with a different proposal after adjustments.

amount

beneficiary

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionDepositPlaced

DecisionStarted

medium_spender

Please vote nay, thank you!

root

whitelisted_caller

wish_for_change

staking_admin

treasurer

lease_admin

fellowship_admin

general_admin

auction_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

small_tipper

big_tipper

small_spender

big_spender

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for signaling that the network wishes for some change

Origin able to cancel slashes and manage minimum commission.

Origin for spending up to 10,000,000 DOT from the treasury as well as generally administering it.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin able to spend around 250 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 1,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 10,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend around 100,000 DOT from the treasury at once.

Origin able to spend up to 1,000,000 DOT from the treasury at once.