This week we focused on 14 referendum proposals—10 new proposals and 4 ongoing proposals.
As always, check our voting results, reasons, and the latest compilation of voting principles 👇
✅ #1638 OneBlock+ and PaperMoon 2025 Educational Program (Requesting 376,300 USDT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1638
Vote: Support (AYE, originally against)
Communication with the team via phone was very efficient, and we believe the latest division of labor, budget structure, and cost updates are reasonable. OneBlock continues to play a key role in developer education, and we support this optimized version.
❌ #1639 Papi Simulator: Developer Tool Trial (Requesting 21,920 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1639
Vote: Still against (NAY)
We only support retrospective funding for developer tools because such tools lack effective usage tracking mechanisms.
❌ #1644 devGround Phase 2 (Requesting 172,210 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1644
Vote: Still against (NAY)
We understand that retrospective funding may not be suitable for the company's structure of this team, but we still believe retrospective funding aligns more with the treasury's original intention for public goods—funding based on usage and impact. The treasury is not meant to help teams run their companies.
❌ #1649 Polkadot × Discovery Channel Co-branding Collaboration (Requesting 250,000 USDT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1649
Vote: Still against (NAY)
We oppose proposals for brand exposure that cannot measure conversion effects (such as wallet creation, app installation, etc.). The treasury at this stage should prioritize practicality rather than merely increasing exposure.
❌ #1650 The BD Hub Business Development Platform (Requesting 255,150 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1650
Vote: Against (NAY)
While we recognize the value of this platform, we cannot accept an hourly rate exceeding $100. This proposal exceeds our principles of fair compensation.
✅ #1651 System Chain Collator Bonus Supplement (Requesting 42,320 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1651
Vote: Support (AYE)
The system chain is the core infrastructure, with a transparent budget, performance-based disbursement, and aligned with ecological development needs.
✅ #1657 Retrospective Reward: Polkadot SDK Asset Support Function (Requesting 7,575.65 USDT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1657
Vote: Support (AYE)
All work has been delivered; an hourly rate of $50 is reasonable and is a good example of retrospective funding with practical use for AssetHub and Polkadot Hub.
✅ #1660 Polkadot Agents Program (WFC Proposal)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1660
Vote: Support (AYE)
Timely and forward-looking. Balancing flexibility and professionalism. No salaries, only supporting contributors through reimbursements, honors, and clear responsibility tracks. We fully support this vision.
✅ #1662 UX Bounty Q3 Continued Funding (Requesting 67,090 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1662
Vote: Support (AYE)
Q2 showed strong performance (95% satisfaction), with transparent mechanisms and a clear roadmap. UX is key to growth, and we should continue to promote it.
❌ #1664 Polkalotto Part 1 (Requesting 17,000 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1664
Vote: Against (NAY)
We appreciate their ambition, but this proposal seems more like a 'self-circulating business platform' rather than a public good. The actual budget (1 million DOT) is too large, the governance structure is missing, and the team retention funds are too high, posing multiple risks.
❌ #1666 Rewards Program supported by Polkadot (Requesting 250,000 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1666
Vote: Against (NAY)
The conversion goals for sports fans do not align with the current core needs of the ecosystem (developers, DeFi, governance). The budget is unclear, and the product vision is vague.
❌ #1667 Merkle Mountain Belts (Requesting 340,200 USDC + 42,190 DOT)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1667
Vote: Against (NAY)
We recognize the team's efforts, but $340,000 has already been funded to a team of only two people over 11 months, with an hourly rate far exceeding our $100/hr principle. On this basis, an additional request for 42,190 DOT seems unreasonable.
❌ #1668 Subsquid Q4 Maintenance (Requesting 308,700 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1668
Vote: Against (NAY)
We respect the team's continued efforts, but the maintenance cost of $100/hr is too high. In contrast, proposal #1640 shows stable service can be provided for about $23/hr. Additionally, the budget lacks clear breakdown.
❌ #1670 Pixelproof V2 Decentralized Photo Storage Platform (Requesting 225,000 USDC)
polkadot.subsquare.io/referenda/1670
Vote: Against (NAY)
This is not a current priority for the ecosystem; it is more like a showcase of the integration case for the Apillon SDK. There are no clear milestones, team size is unclear, and user value is vague.
————————————
A few thoughts on OpenGov this week & updates to voting principles for PolkaWorld:
1/ As community expectations for reducing DOT inflation continue to strengthen, we expect inflation to decrease to 5% or lower. This would mean a significant reduction in treasury funds—we must prepare in advance.
Therefore, our voting principles return to the fundamental mission of the treasury:
✅ Support proposals with clear necessity
✅ Prioritize funding for irreplaceable public goods
❌ Oppose optional projects or purely promotional proposals
Now every proposal must prove its necessity under this premise.
2/ We also observed that more and more SDK tools and UX proposals aim to improve the developer experience—but many tools have very low actual usage.
Even with good ideas, we should not blindly fund tools that may never be used.
Our position:
🔁 SDK / UX tool projects should adopt retrospective funding.
First develop, prove there is real usage, then apply for funding. This is a responsible way to use treasury funds.
3/ Finally, regarding the standards for compensation:
We believe that development and maintenance work funded by the treasury should have different salary caps:
⚠️ Development: Up to $100 / hour
⚠️ Maintenance: Up to $30 / hour
For those exceeding the above standards, we will vote against.
4/ As we have always insisted:
The long-term sustainable development of Polkadot requires resources to be truly used to stimulate creativity and incentivize mission-driven builders.
A single 'NAY' does not represent a denial of the entire team—it is an invitation for you to improve the proposal better and align it closer to the true needs of the ecosystem.
We should build better together 🫶
Thank you all for your understanding and support!
