This article is from a recent live broadcast of the Polkadot Ambassador Alliance Program, where Lucy invited two guests from the Web3 Foundation responsible for coordinating governance, Bill and Karam, to mainly discuss the following topics:
The Web3 Foundation has never been the 'controller' of the ecosystem, but rather the 'shepherd'.
No matter how good the technology is, if no one is willing to participate, everything is just talk.
OpenGov can indeed be a bit 'more like a government'.
The essence of an ambassador is 'being proactive, don't hesitate, and join boldly!'
DV gives more contributors a voice, but it needs to maintain goodwill and avoid emotional issues.
Our ultimate goal is: the Web3 Foundation and Parity will no longer be the core pillars of the ecosystem.
Continue reading to see all content!
The Web3 Foundation has never been the 'controller' of the ecosystem, but rather the 'shepherd'.
Lucy: Hello everyone, welcome to the first live broadcast of the 'Polkadot Ambassador Alliance Communication Meeting'! This is our new weekly series launched in May, and if the feedback is good, it will continue in the future. We hope to deepen everyone's understanding of core institutions in the ecosystem like the Web3 Foundation, Parity, and Fellowship through this program, and break the stereotype of them being 'closed-door operations giving orders'. Today, we have invited Bill and Karam, two guests deeply involved in OpenGov, to discuss governance-related topics. Let's first ask Bill to introduce himself, followed by Karam.
Bill: Thank you for Lucy's invitation. My name is Bill Laboon, and I am the Director of Education and Governance Projects at the Web3 Foundation. Since 2018, I have participated in the Polkadot ecosystem in various forms, and officially joined the Web3 Foundation in 2019. Before that, I taught computer science at the University of Pittsburgh, where I gradually became acquainted with blockchain and fell in love with Polkadot, and I have never thought about leaving this ecosystem since.
Karam: Hello everyone, I am Karam Alhamad, currently serving as a Governance Coordinator at the Web3 Foundation, working with Bill on OpenGov-related tasks. My background is in aid and grant management, where I worked with the U.S. government and the European Union to support some countries in crisis. From 2018 to 2019, I began exploring how blockchain could address the shortcomings in international development and funding systems, after which I resigned, founded an educational company, and pursued a master's degree in blockchain governance at Yale University. I joined the Web3 Foundation earlier this year and am very happy to communicate with you all.
Lucy: That's great, thank you all. The Web3 Foundation played a guiding role in the early stages of the entire ecosystem. Eighteen months ago, we pressed the 'decentralization' button. Since then, Bill, how has your role changed?
Bill: Over the past year and a half, community coordination work has noticeably increased. Many things that were previously directly promoted by Parity or the Foundation are now handed over to different individuals and teams within the community. My focus has also shifted from 'specific execution' to 'communication and coordination'—my son often jokes that my job is talking to people on the computer, and now I am indeed talking more and more. This is precisely our role, and also the long-term direction of the Foundation.
The Web3 Foundation has never been the 'controller' of the ecosystem, but rather the 'shepherd', and our responsibility is to coordinate all parties. Looking back to when I first joined in 2019, the team was quite small, and Polkadot and Kusama had not yet launched; many things were pushed centrally. Now, with the rise of community power, authority is constantly being decentralized, which is a natural evolution we had long foreseen, and the past year and a half has only accelerated this process.
Lucy: That's great. So Karam, your role hasn't 'changed' because you are newly involved in this 'decentralization' process; we can say we still have a long way to go. During this time since you joined, what challenges have you encountered?
Karam: I believe the ultimate goal is for the community to establish a 'self-driven' relationship with OpenGov, the Foundation, and among themselves. Frankly, when I first joined, the first thing I told Bill was: the reason I applied for this position is that there is a 'coordinator' in the title. In a decentralized open system, this role is particularly meaningful; we are not managers. When I joined, it happened to be during the phase when the Foundation was gradually 'stepping back', with more decision-making power and actions being handed over to the community.
As someone from a highly centralized background, I find this change very exciting. I think one of the criteria for measuring my success is whether this ecosystem can operate normally without me, without Bill, and without the Foundation.
No matter how good the technology is, if no one is willing to participate, everything is just talk.
Lucy: How do you think we should attract more newcomers, not just to participate, but to truly become actors in the decentralized ecosystem?
Karam: This is a great question. As a newcomer (in fact, I just graduated from blockchain academy today, feeling quite happy, but still learning and discovering new things every day), I think the most successful aspect of the ecosystem is the knowledge sharing and education program. As long as you have curiosity, there are always channels to learn, and there are always people to consult. I remember on my first day, I frantically messaged everyone, asking technical questions, while trying to break down and understand the technical aspects of OpenGov and the social aspects behind it—which are equally important as the technology. If you are curious enough, there are plenty of resources to dig into within the ecosystem, and more importantly, empowering individuals and groups within the ecosystem so that they are not just 'ambassadors', but can also be members of DAOs, becoming the true 'voice of the community', rooting themselves in their respective communities, and defining 'blockchain' and 'Polkadot' in ways that align with local culture, becoming the 'translators' between the ecosystem and the community.
Therefore, providing tools, dashboards, and methodologies is crucial. I have interacted with many current ambassadors, and they have shown me a wealth of practical experience and self-made documentation tools, each focusing on their respective DAO or ecological roles, which impressed me.
Bill: I want to add that the 'social aspects' that Karam just mentioned are really critical. The technology is certainly great; this is something that both insiders and outsiders will not deny. Polkadot indeed has many highlights in technology. However, I believe that the most important factor in attracting people to join this ecosystem is still the 'community atmosphere'. If people do not feel that this is a community they want to join, do not want to build, and do not want to stay, then no matter how good the technology is, it doesn't matter.
I have always paid attention to this issue, welcoming new friends as much as possible and answering everyone's questions. I often answer many technical questions on Twitter, Reddit, and other platforms. This reminds me of my experience as a Ruby programmer many years ago, when there was a saying in the Ruby community: 'Matz is friendly, so we should also be friendly' (Matz is the founder of Ruby), and this is one of the reasons I love Ruby. In some programming communities, I won't name names, new people are often met with: 'Go read the documentation yourself!' or 'Don't bother us'. But the Ruby community has always been open and friendly, and I try to bring that atmosphere to the Polkadot community.
The Polkadot system is indeed quite complex and prone to errors, with many aspects differing from other blockchain ecosystems, so we need to work harder to build this community into a 'welcoming place for newcomers'. After all, no matter how good the technology is, if no one is willing to participate, build, and support, everything is just talk.
Lucy: I completely agree. This is also the core of the ambassador declaration, and it is the concept we strive to practice as ambassadors—friendliness comes at no cost, yet it is the biggest challenge in the process of decentralization. We have a large global team that will support each other like family, although we may occasionally argue.
OpenGov can indeed be a bit 'more like a government'.
Another difficult problem is 'seniority' (to use the term from the British civil service system, 'the longer you sit, the more respect you gain'). A similar phenomenon exists in OpenGov—I understand this stems from trust in 'execution capabilities', but the hidden danger is that some proposals may repeatedly pass not based on quality, but because the proposer's 'seniority', while newcomer proposals may be ignored. How do you view the evolution of this phenomenon? How can we make the ecosystem fairer?
Bill: First, it needs to be clarified: not all 'old-timer' proposals can be passed; there are also newcomers who quickly integrate with brilliant ideas and become core members (for example, JAM brought in many people who solved problems with new perspectives, some of whom had not participated in Polkadot a year ago, and now they are shining). So the phenomenon you mentioned about 'sitting on the chair'—this phrase I heard for the first time, and it sounds very British—indeed is a natural phenomenon to some extent.
If a person has been deeply involved in the ecosystem for a long time, it is indeed easier to gain the trust and support of others. But we are also working hard to enhance the voice of newcomers: for example, one of the goals of the Decentralized Voices program is to provide a channel for newcomers to express themselves and have their ideas seen. We have been trying various new methods to improve this; we are very clear that governance cannot be dominated solely by those who have been working at Parity since 2015. This ecosystem must constantly introduce new energy and voices.
Lucy: Later, we will discuss 'Decentralized Voices' in depth. I also want to mention another challenge: many proposals only reflect current needs but may deviate from the overall direction of Polkadot. For example, we now have Coretime, we have the Polkadot hub, and we also have plans like JAM. If someone now proposes something related to music or creativity, it may be seen as 'unimportant', but when there is a lack of clear guidance, people cannot judge what is 'important' and can only try on their own. Do you think we should continue to encourage free proposals, or should we set clear quarterly/annual goals for everyone to try to center proposals around those goals? Bill: I believe OpenGov can indeed be a bit 'more like a government'—that is, with some coordination and direction.
The various bounty programs and community organizations within the ecosystem have already reflected this. On the other hand, the essence of OpenGov is to discover directions through feedback and exploration; the process may be chaotic, but it is also an inevitable path of democracy—debates are unavoidable, but it is precisely through debates that the community can clarify 'what they care about'.
Of course, the focus of voters in the past is different from now (not discussing the controversy of 'one token one vote' here), but it is not advisable to implement a 'Soviet-style five-year plan'—'Comrades, this year we will do this, next year we will do that, absolutely no deviation!' Reality will always change; the value of OpenGov lies in dynamically adjusting direction through diverse feedback, similar to Ethereum's 'North Star' vision, which, though imperfect, gradually clarifies the direction in practice.
Lucy: You mentioned the bounty program, let me explain to those who are unfamiliar: the bounty program refers to allocating a sum of money to subprojects managed by several administrators, who filter proposals that meet specific directions, such as event bounties, marketing bounties, and so on. This model guides resource allocation through the administrators' professional perspectives. Karam, many people have recently discussed whether the bounty program represents a future direction; based on your recent observations, what do you think?
Karam: This actually returns to the philosophy of 'stepping back and letting the community make decisions'. The bounty program is one of the ways the community explores the future of Polkadot—supporting which plans, funding which activities, etc.
In my view, the bounty program and OpenGov can complement each other. Specific small and medium-sized plans can be directly implemented through the bounty program (e.g., existing event bounties, marketing bounties, etc., or even formulating special strategies for 1-3 years), while OpenGov is responsible for broader exploration—its 'chaos' is precisely where its value lies, like an experiment, and perhaps in the future someone will propose a five-year plan proposal, and then the community will resonate with it, who knows.
From a practical perspective, we are gradually decentralizing decision-making power to the community. The Web3 Foundation has started delegating voting rights to some 'Decentralized Voices', and many times we are just assisting rather than leading, helping those groups that are still in the startup phase to stand up, and gradually they can vote independently and decide the future of the ecosystem. Therefore, I believe OpenGov and the bounty system can coexist. Whether to increase or decrease the bounties should be decided by the community, not the Web3 Foundation. This is just my personal opinion, and we can also hear Bill's thoughts.
Bill: I basically agree with what you said. The Web3 Foundation indeed does not want to control too much; our goal is to set some broad strategic directions, but in terms of execution details, we hope to hand over as much as possible to the community. Our role is to help the community make decisions rather than replace them; we only provide coordination support. Ideally, over time, the Foundation's presence will diminish—of course, this is a slow and non-linear process, but this is our vision.
The essence of being an ambassador is 'being proactive, don't hesitate, and join boldly!'
Lucy: Before we dive into the DV topic, I want to briefly revisit the ambassador program. The first ambassador program trained 160 people, and the second phase will soon add 65 more; let's wish them good luck as they may not yet be aware of how 'hardcore' this program is. The sustainability of this project comes from its mechanism—no mandatory time investment, no salary provided, but helping ambassadors accumulate reputation in the ecosystem through ranks and titles, even gaining recognition externally. Many ambassadors actively engage in community work without seeking rewards, which is exactly what we hope to see, but they are eager to participate in meaningful things. Karam, we had a brief chat about this topic over a month ago, and I would like to hear your and Bill's opinions: how do you think ambassadors can help the Foundation advance decentralization, optimize OpenGov, or solidify the community framework in their daily or long-term work?
Bill: I think the answer is actually written in the word 'ambassador' itself—it's about representing the image of Polkadot and conveying our philosophy to the outside world. Just like I am an American living in Switzerland, in some sense, I am the 'unofficial representative' of America here. Others will understand what Americans are like through me, although that thought is a bit scary. I believe that in the Polkadot ecosystem, whether or not one is an 'official ambassador', anyone can be a representative of this ecosystem. This awareness is very important; for example, when you interact with others, they are getting to know Polkadot through you.
Also, I don't really want to list a specific task list of 'you should do A, you should do B', because many times, ambassadors understand better than we do, sitting in our ivory towers, what is happening on the front lines and which areas need improvement.
The only suggestion I want to emphasize is: 'Take action!'—when you see a problem, provide feedback, whether it is a technical bug, product experience, or governance process; it can all be brought up. Don't be afraid to express critical opinions, but at the same time, remember that you are always a part of Polkadot, and your words and actions influence others' views of the entire ecosystem. It may seem a bit unfair, for example, if others develop biases against the entire American society because of one person, but that is the reality. If you choose to be a part of the Polkadot community, please be aware that you represent a collective that is larger than yourself.
Lucy: Well said! Karam, do you have anything to add?
Karam: I completely agree with Bill's viewpoint. The most fascinating (and challenging) aspect of decentralization is that anyone can rise, sometimes even the most unexpected people. The charm of Polkadot lies in its diverse entry points—you can find the right position based on your interests. If you are concerned about governance, you can join DAOs within the ecosystem like Chaos Dao, KusDAO, etc.; furthermore, there is a particularly good trend now where more and more 'localized DAOs' are emerging, such as DAOs in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, etc. If you are a local, just join them; they very much need voices and creativity! The essence of being an ambassador is 'being proactive'—the ecosystem needs more voices and creativity, so don't hesitate, join boldly.
DV gives more contributors a voice, but it needs to maintain goodwill and avoid emotional issues.
Lucy: Well said, the local DAOs you mentioned are very crucial. The first ambassador program's Phragmèn Plan Fund supported the Polkadot Latin America, Brazil community, as well as the joint communities in Eastern Europe and Oceania, and I believe Italy is also included, which is very exciting. We are also synchronously developing Spanish, Chinese, and Italian platforms, and I'm very grateful for these small but beautiful communities coming together. Next, let's talk about DV, and please have Bill briefly explain what DV is.
Bill: DV stands for 'Decentralized Voices'. In simple terms, the Web3 Foundation itself will not vote on many Referenda, especially treasury proposals, but will proportionally delegate the voting rights of the DOT tokens it holds to different DAOs within the ecosystem. Currently, there are 6 DAOs that have been delegated (historically there have been as many as 20).
There are two purposes for this:
First, to give truly active and contributing community organizations more 'voice';
Second, to allow these DAOs to accumulate recognition through decision-making—especially for newcomers to the ecosystem, this is an opportunity to establish reputation.
Lucy: Thank you, Bill. The current fourth phase attempts to introduce more DAOs with lower activity levels and shorter establishment times within the ecosystem, offering more diversity than the previous three phases. Next, Leemo raised a common question: what plans does DV have for the future? Will it adjust based on the participation in OpenGov? Here is a bit of background: DV was initially established because there was a DOT 'whale' in the ecosystem, whose vote could influence most proposals, but now this 'whale' has been less involved in voting. However, the current situation seems somewhat reversed: DV voting is very active, which may discourage ordinary users. What do you think?
Bill: First, it needs to be clarified that the original intention of establishing DV was not to 'balance' any individual or force, but rather the dual goals mentioned earlier. However, it must be acknowledged that the voting proportion of DV now is completely different compared to when it was just launched a year ago, and the overall model of OpenGov has also changed.
We have already adjusted the DV mechanism: for example, we have added the Treasurer Track and Wish for Change Track for DV voting; changed the number of DVs and delegation ratios.
So, regarding the question of whether DV will change in the future, the answer is: it is already changing continuously. Moreover, I expect it will continue to evolve in the future. Specifically, I have asked Karam to compile historical data on DV, and I am currently assessing the performance of the fourth phase, considering possible adjustments for the future.
However, I don't want to say what specific changes will happen now; I hope to collect community feedback first. The fourth phase has just been established for about a month; we plan to analyze the data and gather opinions as soon as possible. Interestingly, different people often have opposite evaluations of DV: some say 'everyone thinks DV is like this', while another person claims 'not everyone thinks so'. This indicates that there is an information bubble within the community, and we need to objectively analyze the advantages and disadvantages of DV and think about how to optimize it. It can be confirmed that DV will continue to iterate, but will not be completely cancelled. There have been discussions on the forum about whether DV is still necessary; we believe its core value still exists, but parameters may be adjusted, such as:
Delegation amount
Number of DVs
Duration of each phase
Does the selection mechanism need optimization?
All of these could change; I expect that in the next few phases of DV, we will see some new adjustments.
Lucy: Thank you for Bill's clarification. Karam, this is your daily job; do you have anything to add?
Karam: Bill has already covered it comprehensively. Personally, I believe that in the future, DV should not only focus on 'delegation of voting rights' but also emphasize 'cultural creation'—becoming DV should not be about being 'loud' (which has indeed been the case in the past), but rather about having genuine care and belief in the ecosystem, not just because they have funding or fame. We are studying the data from the previous phases of DV, but I believe that the future development of DV will depend entirely on community feedback, which will be an interesting discussion.
Lucy: I completely agree. Some people believe that the fourth phase of DV, being relatively new and with lower activity, may tend to 'follow the trend' and not dare to oppose mainstream opinions. Here I would like to call for: please maintain openness and goodwill towards all DVs. An important value of DV is that the voting reasons must be made public—if someone votes against (or supports) your proposal without explaining the reason, it will be very difficult for you to improve the proposal or judge the direction, just like Bart in The Simpsons pressing the buzzer repeatedly with no response, only to repeat the same mistakes.
Bill: The lack of feedback is indeed a major problem. One of the third meanings of establishing DV is to incentivize people to actively provide feedback by giving DOT rewards. As someone who pays attention to governance (including weekends), I often feel confused by certain votes. I won't name names or say which proposal it is, but sometimes when I see an anonymous account holding a large amount of KSM or DOT without leaving any feedback, I wonder: why vote this way? Was it a mistake, or did I miss something?
There are mainly two questions:
Most people lack the motivation to provide feedback (it all depends on self-awareness or the desire to express).
Once feedback is given, it often leads to lengthy discussions, which can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, and many people do not have time to participate.
From the perspective of game theory or utilitarianism, their choice to remain silent is rational. But from an ecological perspective, we need this feedback too much. You mentioned relying on incentive mechanisms to guide people to provide feedback, which will also bring new problems. For example, many votes are completed instantly after the public referendum goes live, and many are 'random votes'. Even with AI analysis, it is difficult to discern the authenticity of voting reasons. So this issue is indeed tricky. If anyone has good ideas, feel free to provide feedback through [email protected], whether about DV or OpenGov governance, we are willing to listen to suggestions. Although we cannot directly modify OpenGov's parameters, we are very happy to hear everyone's suggestions.
Lucy: Thank you very much. Personally, I often think about giving voting reasons, but I worry about triggering disputes and prolonged pulling. Sometimes when you write something and it gets forwarded to Twitter, it can blow up. So ultimately, it still comes back to 'maintaining goodwill'.
Karam: To add to Bill's point about 'maintaining goodwill'—as someone who receives a lot of private messages every day, I want to say that proposers should also treat DV with goodwill. Observing the feedback from this phase and previous DVs, their attitudes have been quite consistent. But it's easy to forget that most of these DAO members are volunteers, not full-time employees. Recently, someone questioned 'why a certain DAO member doesn't post feedback', but just imagine a DAO with over 100 members, expecting everyone to write feedback on platforms like Polkassembly or Subsquare is unrealistic. We encourage DVs to share their reasoning in public channels (Twitter, Telegram, Discord), but we also need to understand their limitations and treat each other with goodwill.
Lucy: I completely agree. Although I have never been a DV, I can understand their situation—it's like any political field, especially in a brand new and diverse ecosystem like Polkadot; there has never been a similar model in the world. Leemo mentioned that 'if you vote against, the proposer may come to ask you why, but it doesn't mean you will change your vote', which also goes back to the importance of feedback. If there were more feedback, along with a bit of humility in accepting 'one's ideas may not be accepted by everyone', perhaps a balance could be found. For instance, when I participated in Fellowship, the atmosphere was very positive overall, but before voting, you never know the result. If one feels good about oneself but no one points out the problem, the same method will be repeated. So I am wondering, can the community set some cultural norms together? It seems that we currently have no real clear consensus or value standards.
Bill: In fact, I think the community can collectively establish a set of values and write them onto the chain through 'wish for change' referendums, which would be very meaningful. Earlier, Leemo also mentioned emotional issues in public discussions—that is indeed a pain point. When you apply for funding from the treasury, you are essentially requesting trust and resources, rather than 'entitlement'. Especially since treasury proposals often involve prior token distribution (unlike the milestone mechanism of bounty programs), applicants should adopt a mindset of 'requesting', rather than presuming entitlement. This goes back to the importance of shared values—we need to establish a consensus that 'coming to the negotiation table is to request trust'. Treasury funds are limited, and approving one proposal means rejecting another; there will inevitably be wins and losses in decision-making, but it should not be turned into a 'war', but rather a joint exploration of how to move the Polkadot network forward, which is our common goal.
Our ultimate goal is: the Web3 Foundation and Parity will no longer be the core pillars of the ecosystem.
Lucy: This is very important. I often hear people say, 'It's just 100,000 dollars, give it to them,' and I find it unbelievable. That's 100,000 dollars!—in reality, you can't just casually ask an investor or a bank for 100,000 dollars for free. Although treasury proposals require deliverables, essentially, this is a grant, not a loan, and it must be treated with caution. Karam, do you have anything to add? If not, I would like to ask both of you one question in the last nine minutes: in the next two to three years, if Polkadot's decentralization proceeds as planned, which parts of your work will no longer require your involvement?
Bill: First of all, I hope Karam's work in governance has been excellent, but ideally, the DV mechanism can gradually 'retire'—although this is unlikely in the next year or two, if we can develop a more mature governance system, perhaps DV will no longer be necessary. Additionally, the 'support' work that our team is responsible for also hopes to 'become unemployed'. The early Polkadot support email was actually my personal email; at that time, everyone encountered various problems using the Polkadot JS application, and even basic operations were quite challenging. But now with wallets like Nova and Talisman, the user experience has improved significantly, and very few people send me private messages asking about operational issues. Similarly, projects like the 'Decentralized Node Program' will also exit the historical stage as the network becomes sufficiently decentralized.
In fact, the Web3 Foundation and Parity have always been promoting decentralization: social media operations, event organization, anti-fraud work, and other tasks that were once handled by the Foundation have now been handed over to the community. Our ultimate goal is: that one day in the future, the Web3 Foundation and Parity will no longer be the core pillars of the ecosystem, but rather a network that is completely autonomously governed and self-driven by the community. This may not be achieved quickly, but we are gradually removing the 'training wheels' to let the ecosystem operate independently.
Lucy: That's right, the last analogy is fantastic. Karam, how do you plan to excel in your current work and then shift to solving the next decentralized problem? Or, how do you see the evolution of your role?
Karam: As I said at the beginning, I think one of the criteria for measuring my success is that this role no longer needs to exist in the future. For example, now I need to guide representatives, organize conference calls, handle dozens of private messages every day... these should not exist in the long term. If we succeed, then the entire 'machine' should be able to run by itself, without needing anyone to constantly tweak it.
As Leemo mentioned, the entire governance culture should be internalized, self-driven, and not require intermediate coordinators. If everything goes smoothly, I may turn to long-term research, considering the democratic forms of the post-voting era, exploring how communities can achieve self-governance without depleting their vitality, and investigating how to apply the OpenGov model in countries or systems experiencing crisis fatigue. These attempts will be based on the experiences gained from the Polkadot project, and ideally, my presence will become 'invisible'—not disappearing, but rather the entire system no longer needing similar coordinating support structures.
Lucy: This indeed reminds everyone that the goal is not only to achieve decentralization for Polkadot but also to integrate into the grand picture of global development, which is crucial. We have only three minutes left, and Simon's question is essentially the core of today's discussion—given that the ambassador program has professionals from multiple fields globally, how do you think they can align with the goals of the Web3 Foundation and make significant contributions? Although we have already discussed this, could Bill summarize it in one or two sentences?
Bill: Just play to your strengths in specific areas—go for it, don't hesitate. Remember, fortune favors the brave. Be bold in trying different things; it's hard for me to specify what exactly each ambassador should do, which is precisely the design intention—I am not a puppet master controlling the whole situation. But if you have any ideas or projects you'd like to push forward, or if you don't know how to start, feel free to contact me or Karam at any time. We are both very willing to help.
Lucy: That's great; this is exactly the atmosphere we want to cultivate through the ambassador Fellowship program—encouraging everyone to show their true selves and embrace skills and passion. I originally wanted to ask how the Nakamoto coefficient is calculated, but we only have two minutes left.
Bill: I can quickly explain. It measures the 'number of entities that need to be coordinated to disrupt system stability'. For example, in Bitcoin, if two or three entities can combine to control over 50% of the computing power, then the coefficient is 2 or 3. In Polkadot, the specific number is more complex because many entities behind the validators are not public. According to NakaFlow's statistics, Polkadot's Nakamoto coefficient is 174, but this may not include all organizations that control multiple validator nodes behind the scenes. However, even in this case, our data is still quite good compared to other chains. Karam has also done some research previously, and the data shows that Polkadot excels in this regard compared to most projects.
Lucy: That's great, Karam can share the research on the ambassador platform after completion so that everyone can learn. The last question, describe the anthropomorphic traits of Polkadot in one word, and why? Bill goes first.
Bill: Nerd, I really love that word.
Lucy: Haha, this doesn't need explanation, it's very vivid! What about you, Karam?
Karam: Unstoppable.
Lucy: Unstoppable, that's great! Thank you both so much, I really enjoyed today's conversation and hope you did too. I think this interview is very valuable for the entire Polkadot community. Looking forward to gathering again in a few months—by then the Polkadot ecosystem will surely have new changes, and we will have brand new topics—that's what we love about the Polkadot ecosystem! Thank you!