Of which 2 are new proposals, and 2 are proposals for continued follow-up.
Here is our voting situation:
❌#536 Kusama x Arcadia: THE SPIDER (29.77K KSM)
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/536#3
Voting result: Against (NAY)
We appreciate Arcadia's artistic vision, but this proposal does not align with the current emphasis on hacker culture and ZK/privacy technology exploration in Kusama.
Cultural apparatus ≠ sustainable developer growth.
Budget is too high, lacking clear technical indicators.
❌ #537 WFC: Locking a portion of staking rewards
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/537#7
Voting result: Against (NAY)
The proposal deviates from the core issue.
Users care about returns — if staking rewards decline, they will naturally turn to DeFi.
The proposal lacks clear goals and does not address the issues of inflation or declining nominators' rewards.
✅ #538 DAO toolkit (deployed to AssetHub)
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/538#1
Voting result: In favor (AYE)
This is a clearly structured and technically oriented proposal aimed at providing native on-chain governance tools for the DAO.
No governance disputes, focusing solely on practical modules: voting, NFTs, community.
Has long-term value for community-type DAOs like Truth DAO.
✅ #539 WFC: DarkHole destruction mechanism
kusama.subsquare.io/referenda/539#3
Voting result: In favor (AYE)
A simple, low-cost module that can implement trust-minimized destruction without governance processes.
Although we do not fully agree with some of the arguments in the proposal, we believe this module is worth deploying first.
❌ #1587 Polkadot: Snowbridge milestone reward distribution (approximately $5 million)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1587
Voting result: Still against (NAY)
We still have concerns about the incentive structure:
1. Many tasks have already been completed, why are incentives still needed?
2. The proposal does not clearly define the boundary between 'public funding support' and 'future incentive expectations'.
As a public bridge project without tokens, its revenue attribution and value distribution mechanisms need clearer regulations.
✅ #1593 WAGOI (Web3 vehicle data compliance infrastructure) – $660,000
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1593…
Voting result: changed from against to in favor (From NAY to AYE)
After four rounds of internal discussions, our concerns have been addressed.
The team has committed publicly: if there are profits in the future, a portion will be returned to the treasury.
The project is expected to bring real-world adoption and on-chain activity, and we will continue to monitor it.
✅ #1619 Pop CLI – Integrated developer tools ($577,500)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1619…
Voting result: In favor (AYE)
Strong internal demand, clear roadmap, stable past delivery.
Although the budget is high, we confirmed with the developers that the workload is reasonable and the budget meets industry standards.
✅ #1624 LunoKit – Web3 account connection infrastructure ($49,200)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1624…
Voting result: Unanimously in favor (AYE)
LunoKit addresses the real pain points of DApp teams:
✅ Unified multi-wallet access
✅ Account/session state management
✅ Standard UI components
✅ On-chain data subscription Hook
✅ Complete TypeScript documentation
Budget is reasonable, delivery expectations are clear, with high ecological value.
———————
📌 This week's OpenGov reflection:
The Polkadot treasury should try to avoid making commitments for future incentives for a specific project, as there is too much uncertainty involved. 🤔