“Just spend two weeks in the Polkadot community and you’ll definitely feel the vibe he brings.” — Host Jay
In the Polkadot community, Leemo is a well-known name. He is the Chief Friendly Officer of Nova Sama Technologies, the co-founder of ChaosDAO, the introducer of the concept of "dark governance", and an indispensable pillar of the entire ecosystem.
The host Jay jokingly said: "You are the first important guest we have invited in almost 200 episodes of our show."
The recording location this time is the backstage of WebZero Bloxpatie. The chaotic setting and warm atmosphere perfectly reflect the unique temperament that Leemo brings to this ecosystem.
In this article, we will learn how Leemo entered Polkadot and gradually developed into an opinion leader! And his views and suggestions on the current and future development of Polkadot! Take a look at the main contents of this article:
Even if you are not a developer, you can still be a community leader
The birth of ChaosDAO and a $400 reward
From World of Warcraft to Polkadot
In Polkadot, what really makes people stand out is not their resume, but their continuous voice
OpenGov isn’t perfect, but it at least allows us to argue in public
Position size is not everything. OpenGov is a game of faith, voice and collaboration.
8 signs of a bad proposal: A guide to avoiding OpenGov fatigue
Who is the real culprit behind the DOT selling pressure?
Who says Leemo only opposes? He immediately nods in support of such proposals!
DAO investment, PoP identity, lending market, developer experience: 8 priority directions for ecosystem construction
Leemo's three most anticipated Polkadot events: contracts, identity, and governance changes
Keep reading to see them all!
Even if you are not a developer, you can still be a community leader
Jay: This time, Space monkeys finally invited Leemo! He is the Chief Friendly Officer of Nova Sama Technologies, co-founder of Chaos DAO, the introducer of "dark governance", and one of the key pillars of the Polkadot ecosystem.
He is one of the most requested guests in our series, and we are almost at the 200th episode, so we finally got him. Leemo, welcome to the show!
Leemo: Your opening words made my face blush, thank you so much!
Jay: To be honest, anyone who has been in the Polkadot community for two weeks can basically feel the atmosphere you are conveying. You have promoted many important social, political, and technological changes in the ecosystem. But you are not a developer yourself, right?
Leemo: Yes, I am definitely not a developer, I am more like a geek enthusiast.
Jay: What were you doing before you became a Polkadot fan?
Leemo: I officially came into contact with blockchain on New Year's Eve 2020, which was New Year's Day 2021. At that time, the epidemic was under lockdown, and I thought it was time to cheer up and do some investment. Suddenly I remembered that I had seen the word "Bitcoin" on Reddit before, so I looked it up online, opened CoinGecko to look at the top ten coins, and saw Polkadot at a glance. After reading the introduction, I thought, "Wow, this is so cool."
Jay: What exactly impressed you about Polkadot’s introduction?
Leemo: The concept of "interoperability". It sounds so necessary for different blockchains to be able to communicate and collaborate with each other. How can these chains be independent? They must be able to communicate with each other.
Jay: How long did you study that night?
Leemo: It was probably around three in the morning. I drank about twelve cans of beer and finished checking all the information.
Jay: Sure, sure. Did you buy DOT later?
Leemo: I bought it (this is not an investment advice, haha). The price was around $5 at the time, which was also the beginning of the bull market, so the timing of entry was pretty good.
Then you quickly start to understand the underlying technology. There was almost no official documentation at the time, and everyone was using the Polkadot.js app. So I am now a veteran in using this tool, because at that time, if you wanted to understand Polkadot, you had to use this.
Jay: I feel like I entered the circle around that time.
Leemo: We came in at about the same time as Alice and Bob. At that time, we were all making educational videos, and I’m still making some of them now.
My first video seemed to be about teaching people how to create a wallet, then how to use Polkadot.js.app to stake, and then how to participate in crowd lending, which was quite interesting.
Jay: I always tell people that the reason I have my current career is all thanks to the Polkadot.js app being so inhumane to use haha. You are the same, right?
Leemo: Exactly the same.
The birth of Chaos DAO and a $400 reward
Jay: At that time, Alice and Bob, also known as Tommy, also started making videos. He was also trying to solve the problem of the "information gap". Was it he who later proposed to set up Discord?
Leemo: Yes, he initiated it. You are talking about Chaos DAO.
Jay: This is the origin story of Chaos DAO.
Leemo: Yes, this is the most troublesome group of people, haha. But it was not like this at the beginning. At first, it was just a place for people who were really passionate about Polkadot technology to gather together. You know, during the bull market, there were people everywhere who were "to the moon", shouting every day how much the price would fly. So our starting point was still quite pure at the beginning.
Jay: Yes! Tommy discovered that we had a common passion and a pure excitement about this ecosystem.
Leemo: Yes, he was actually the first person to talk to me about governance, such as what the Council is. At that time, I was making videos, and one of them was about the SS58 address format. That is, if you have a Polkadot account, the addresses displayed on different chains are different, but in fact, the underlying account is the same. After I made that video, Kusama gave me $400 in rewards, and I used that money to buy a microphone, which is a low-profile version of this MV7.
Jay: Very good. Actually, the reward mechanism at that time was really cool. Now some people may not be clear about the process. In fact, anyone can propose a reward to the Council. At that time, it was Governance v1. I think there were 14 or 13 people in the Kusama Council?
Each council member will then submit an estimate of how much they think the content is worth, and the median will be taken as the final amount.
Leemo: Yes, that's basically it. In practice, one councillor usually says first, for example, "I think this is worth 10 KSM", and then others will roughly glance at the content and say I think it is 15 KSM, and the system will automatically come up with a median, and then the reward amount is determined.
Jay: Yes, and then after a while, KSM will be transferred to your account. Do you still remember how you felt when you received that KSM for the first time?
Leemo: It was pretty cool. I had a good-paying job at the time, and I hadn’t started “cheating the government” yet. So it wasn’t life-changing, but it was pretty cool: like, “Wow, someone is paying me for the videos I made online!”
Jay: I was also pushed by Pokachu, who got me a lot of rewards. And Paradox. I think both of us were actually encouraged by the "reward incentive".
Leemo: Yes, it is. I think it is good to create educational content. If you know something and think that people around you or in the community may not understand it, then just record a video to explain it. I have been doing this for the past four years. Although I don’t update it frequently, I will release a video about every three months, which is quite meaningful.
Jay: To be honest, you are now the first choice for me and many others to do complex operations on the chain. We are willing to ask you any questions we have, and we will definitely get a response within seven days. We will not ask those senior developers directly, because they may never reply to our messages, or even find us annoying and block you from now on. But you are different, you are the "extrinsic writer of the people".
From World of Warcraft to Polkadot
Haha, let's talk about why we are so involved. Why do you think the culture behind this makes you so interested? Do you have any similar online community experience that allows you to naturally adapt to this environment? Do you have similar experience?
Leemo: I love playing (World of Warcraft) and have been playing since I was 12 years old. I have always been active in online communities. Many of my best friends are actually people I met online, although this is not good for real social life unless you can occasionally meet offline. But I just think that online communities are great. So it is natural for me to build a community on Polkadot, and I still think it makes sense.
I often compare Polkadot to large guilds in World of Warcraft. Whether it is the governance process, social relationships, or even the bloody plot, they are exactly the same. The various debates on OpenGov are like the arguments in the game when someone takes the equipment that he shouldn't, haha. It feels exactly the same.
Jay: What is the general goal of a guild in World of Warcraft? What do they want to do?
Lemon: 打 Boss。
Jay: Can this be applied to the world of Polkadot?
Leemo: Actually, no, but you do need a "goal". This is also one of my criticisms of Polkadot, that the current sense of "mission" or "North Star goal" is too vague.
You ask different people and they give you different answers. Whether it's community members, people from Parity, or people from the Web3 Foundation, it seems that everyone has a different common vision for the future. In addition to the big and empty goals of "making Web3 better", what exactly are we working on? What do we want to achieve in six months, one year, or five years? This never seems to be clearly stated. Maybe we should do a better job of defining our goals.
Jay: I find that many people who gradually become leaders in this circle often go through a stage of "self-disclosure" and begin to no longer be anonymous. This is part of the path to a public identity. I often see some anonymous accounts post great content and make great contributions, but because no one knows who they are, they lack some "weight". We both actually started anonymously. Looking back now, what is your experience of going from anonymity to recording a podcast today?
Leemo: I have a really funny story. The name I used in the (World of Warcraft) guild was Leemo.
This goes back to when I was 13 years old. Those who play World of Warcraft know that I was playing Karazhan with a bunch of uncles in their 30s who were clumsy. It often made me mad. There was a guy named Danny who saw me getting angry all the time and said, "You should be called Leemo, because your name is Lee (my real name) and emo." Then I used this name forever, haha.
Jay: So you have been using the identity “Leemo” for a long time?
Leemo: Yes, when I was at my last job, someone in the office played World of Warcraft with me, and they knew me as Leemo. Then there was another colleague who also played crypto, and one day he was browsing Twitter during work hours, and happened to see an account called Leemo. That colleague said to the person next to him: "Isn't that Lee?" Then the person walked up to me with his phone and said, "Isn't that you?" I was confused at the time: "Ah, shit... it's me." But later everyone just treated it as a joke and didn't take it seriously.
I can understand why some people prefer to remain anonymous, and it may be more comfortable for them. But I think "real name" is also valuable, for example, it is easier for people to trust you. When others know that you are a real person, rather than the fifteenth stub of an anonymous account, your words will indeed carry more weight.
Jay: Of course, it doesn’t mean that anonymous accounts can’t make great contributions, but it is indeed more difficult to establish a reputation.
Leemo: Yes, it is difficult to build up a reputation, but it depends on the individual. Some people prefer to remain anonymous, and I understand that.
Jay: Do you think the Polkadot ecosystem encourages people to use real names more than other crypto ecosystems?
Leemo: I think so, especially if you want to apply for financial funding or something like that, you do a good job in this regard, always emphasizing the need to establish social trust and standards. In most cases, if you are anonymous, financial applications will be much more difficult.
People want to know who is behind it and whether it is a real person that can be trusted.
But if you are anonymous, it will indeed be more difficult to apply for the treasury. People are always more inclined to trust projects that have someone responsible behind them.
In Polkadot, what really makes people stand out is not their resume, but their continued voice
Jay: I totally agree. Then you became a “regular soldier” and started to do a proper job?
Leemo: It’s not really becoming more formal, it’s more annoying haha.
Jay: Hahaha, what did you do before? Which industry?
Leemo: I used to work in the oil and gas industry as a mechanical engineer, and I worked for a BP outsourcing company in Azerbaijan for six years. Most of the time I was in the office drawing blueprints and doing construction documents, but occasionally I would go on business trips to offshore drilling platforms and fly over by helicopter, which was pretty cool and fun.
Jay: It sounds like a very formal profession, the income should be good, right?
Leemo: Yes, that’s right. So my parents were very unhappy with the path I chose later, from switching from such a good job to posting shitposts on the Internet all day long.
Jay: So why did you decide to jump into this field?
Leemo: Actually, it was because I had a soft spot for Polkadot.js.app at the time and I also liked to teach others how to use it. Later, I had the opportunity to join Robonomics to do something, and then I started to help the community more and more.
Later, NovaWallet offered me a full-time job, and I happened to be friends with Anto and others, so I decided to accept this opportunity and try to do something meaningful in the Web3 world.
Jay: What is the difference between working at BP and NovaWallet?
Leemo: Well, actually both jobs are stressful, but the sources of stress are different. I personally prefer working at Nova, I really like it. Overall, it is a completely different job.
Jay: What’s the difference?
Leemo: Almost all aspects are different. I don’t know how to describe it. I can only say that clients are very stressful. For example, BP’s clients are very difficult to deal with, and Polkadot’s OpenGov is also very troublesome. They are quite similar in this respect.
But I still prefer these things about Polkadot, because I am very used to this kind of "online community" interaction. The oil industry is different. It is difficult to "climb up" in that environment, and it is difficult to build social reputation or "social capital".
But in the crypto industry, as long as you really like this field and are willing to speak out, you can slowly "climb up", such as becoming a small "thought leader" in some fields.
Jay: Indeed, there are many opportunities for upward development here, unlike the strict hierarchical structure of traditional industries where one can never climb up.
Leemo: Yes, take me for example. Although people often complain about my words and deeds, in fact, we were just simple community members at the beginning, and then we kept speaking and sharing ideas, and slowly got to where we are today. You are like this, Tommy is like this, I am like this, and Ben is like this. So the key is - dare to speak, speak more, and really like this technology. And don't be too "fud", it's okay to criticize occasionally, but don't be pessimistic all day long.
Jay: Do you ever have a time when you overdo the fud?
Leemo: Yes.
Jay: How did you realize you were over-fud?
Leemo: People started to ignore you, and the overall atmosphere became very negative. That was a few years ago, and I was always in a very negative mood. Later I understood: if you really think something is not good, you'd better also provide a way to improve it. Don't just complain "this is not good, that is not good", but say "this has a problem, I think we can change it this way", so that others are willing to help you improve it.
Jay: What do you think is your mission at Nova?
Leemo: We have always wanted to create the best products and the best user experience so that more people can easily enter the Web3 world.
Take NovaWallet as an example. I believe it is now the most popular and comprehensive wallet on Polkadot.
If you go back to 2021, the entire Polkadot user experience was a real mess. But now, we have achieved one-click login (supporting Google or Apple accounts), one-click exchange, one-click staking... all of which make it easier for users to get started and participate.
The core goal of all our products is: easy to use and everyone wants to use them.
OpenGov isn’t perfect, but it at least allows us to argue in public
Jay: To be honest, from the time we first came into contact with Polkadot to now, the user experience of the entire ecosystem has really improved by leaps and bounds.
In addition to the ease of use and endless innovative application scenarios, another particularly big change is the transformation of the governance mechanism.
You mentioned before that the Council system in the past was not incompetent, but because it was too centralized and too laborious, many decisions were not paid much attention by the community. Then we turned to OpenGov open governance. I think your great influence in the entire ecosystem now actually comes from this transformation.
Leemo: Yes, although governance is actually quite a lot of drama and a headache. During the first generation of governance (Gov1), almost no one cared about what happened. No one really cared at all about what the council decided. No one in the community even cared about it.
But after turning to OpenGov, people like us at AAG, as well as you, me, Tommy, and Ben, have been posting information about governance on social platforms, and tools like Subsquare have made governance easier to understand and participate in.
People began to realize: I have a say. In the past, under the council system, you didn't have much sense of participation. At that time, many council members were elected by big whale accounts in the early days, and these big whales never exchanged their votes or adjusted their positions, making it almost impossible for outsiders to squeeze in. You had to have a lot of votes behind you to be elected. That mechanism is actually quite bad. I like the way more people can speak out now, even if you make fun of others on Twitter, it is a form of participation.
Jay: Do you know why I founded AAG?
At that time, I was trying to get a grant for WagMedia. At that time, the people active in the governance circle were basically validators and the like. Although I respected them very much, I felt like they were a "validator mafia."
It was really difficult at that time. Although the funding was finally approved, I was thinking that the "platform" we governed - actually a private chat room on Element, was too hidden.
Basically, everything was done there, but to put it bluntly, it was done behind closed doors. In fact, anyone could get in, but no one knew where the door was.
Leemo: Because many people in the community don’t use Matrix at all, although I understand why some people use it - it is end-to-end encrypted and much more secure than Discord and Telegram. But it is too unfriendly for ordinary people, and the threshold for downloading a new app is too high.
Jay: Yeah, I was dealing with validators on Element, and they kept saying “the community’s opinion is…”, and I thought: No, that’s not right, there’s no community representation here at all. ChaosDAO wasn’t there, and many other active community members weren’t there either.
It was only a month or two before OpenGov went live, and I thought: screw it, let’s just create a transparent platform, do a YouTube live stream, and start this discussion again.
Leemo: Yes, it was very timely for AAG to start broadcasting at that time. Now we have recorded 240 and 241 episodes. I also want to say one thing - whenever someone says "the community thinks...", I suggest that everyone be cautious about this statement. There are too many such cases. To put it bluntly, the Polkadot community is actually composed of many small circles, and each circle has different opinions. Therefore, anyone who claims that "I understand the thoughts of the entire community" is almost certainly wrong. Don't blindly believe such people.
Position size is not everything. OpenGov is a game of faith, voice and collaboration.
Jay: So what do you think of the OpenGov experiment? We have been doing it for more than two years.
Leemo: I think OpenGov is the ultimate "stakeholder governance model." But some people don't like it because they don't hold much, and they are more accustomed to the "one person, one vote" democratic system, whether you are Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, everyone's vote has the same weight.
Jay: But the problem is, you and I don’t actually have any large positions, haha.
Leemo: Yes, I am actually quite poor, even though I earn $50,000 a month, oh no, a week, haha. But since the rule of the game is "people with positions have greater voting rights", then we have to understand the logic of its operation.
You can vote even if you only have one DOT, but you may want your vote to “move the needle” — to see the actual impact of your vote.
So what we do at ChaosDAO is to unite everyone to vote collectively. Everyone can delegate their voting rights to a DAO account, so that our collective voice is louder. This can also provide opportunities for some people who are not in good financial conditions but are very passionate. For example, some people cannot afford to buy a lot of DOTs due to their birthplace or economic reasons, and did not catch up with the early ICOs. But if a DAO has a hundred people and a total of five million votes, even if you only have 100 DOTs, you can become 1% of them and still have influence.
Jay: Even if you don’t have much money, you can still accumulate “social capital”. For example, even if you only vote with one DOT, if you leave a comment on Subsquare, your vote will be displayed next to your name, which is more convincing than those who only comment but don’t vote.
Leemo: Right. I also suggest that everyone participate more in the comments of proposals. I admit that I am not very diligent sometimes, but I will communicate with people on AAG, Twitter, and even in private messages. You have to dare to speak your mind. As long as you are polite (although I am not very polite sometimes, haha), no one will blame you. Our ecosystem needs more voices, don't be afraid to speak up.
Jay: We have now seen over 2,000 proposals on both OpenGov chains combined.
Leemo: Interestingly, before Polkadot’s OpenGov was officially launched, I had a meeting with Centrifuge DAO, and I remember telling them that there would be 1,000 proposals in the first year. Some of them were from the Ethereum ecosystem and told me I was crazy. In the end, the first year was about the same - I think it was 998?
8 signs of a bad proposal: A guide to avoiding OpenGov fatigue
Jay: Great. So what do you think are the common characteristics of dog shit refs?
Leemo: I am generally quite skeptical about this kind of situation - someone makes a proposal and says: "This project can bring 750 million users, 500 million users..." or "This market is so huge."
Jay: It’s always 8 billion, haha.
Leemo: Yes, it is always the number of the world's population. I can understand why they say that, but we still have to be pragmatic. For example, the smart home market is indeed huge, but the number of users who really care about privacy and don't want to use big data center services is probably only about 500,000.
Jay: And how many of these users can you reach?
Leemo: Right, so you have to be realistic. You can say, "Among these 500,000 people, we can reach a few percent," which is actually a lot of users. But if you directly say, "This market is so big," or "They will definitely use blockchain to solve this problem," then I will immediately be wary.
Jay: I see. So, it is absolutely a taboo to mislead people by mistaking "potential market size" for "actual number of users". What else?
Leemo: I have said this in some groups, and I may be scolded, but this paragraph must be kept. It is the kind of people who say "I have received funding from the Web3 Foundation" and "I passed the PBA audit" as soon as they open their mouths. It is not to say that this is bad, of course it is a good thing, but the question is - you have received funding once, why didn't you get it a second time? Ask the Web3 Foundation "Why didn't they give money again", is it because the project is not good? Or is it because "this project is mature enough to be on OpenGov"? There must be a bit of questioning spirit.
Of course, if someone passes the PBA and really wants to make a good product, that’s great, but it doesn’t make sense to say “I passed the PBA, so this proposal must be passed.”
Speaking of PBA, I had a meeting with some PBA people before, and I remember Fabi was there. I think the current model needs to be changed. It can't always be a "buyer's market" where someone comes and says "I want to do this, give me money."
We have money in the treasury. As token holders, we should take the initiative to say "we need such and such" and then issue a tender, just like we did recently. In this way, someone will come to take the job and say "I can do it". In this way, the cost may be lower than if someone comes to us on their own, but the quality of the product is the same, the team will not lose money, and everyone will benefit.
The Treasury should really try this model more often. I'm wearing a Heroic jersey today. Maybe Polkadot wants to sponsor an e-sports team? Then they can say, "We want to sponsor an e-sports team. We want to print the logo here, do these promotions, and have this much budget." There will definitely be many teams that will sign up. This can be done for other things, not just sponsorship.
Jay: Another point you just mentioned is also very important, that is, some people use their relationship with certain large institutions to endorse them, but these institutions themselves do not really stand up to support them.
Leemo：Yes, I hope that the foundation and Parity can speak out more actively. I know Pierre recently spoke on the Eiger Cloud proposal, which is good.
Jay: Yeah, I also think Parity is more active in OpenGov, which is great.
Leemo: I am not a technical expert, so I listen carefully to what people like Pierre say. And people like Seun, Bastie, and Joe, if they say a project is really good, I will be convinced. It would be better if they could speak more often.
Jay: That's right. In addition, the other issue you mentioned may become a warning signal in the future: if someone directly asks the Treasury for money to do their own project instead of applying for the tender issued by the Treasury, then it is worth being vigilant. Are there any other red flags in the proposal? I can think of one: asking DOT directly.
Leemo: Yes, I posted a comment a while ago on a proposal to use DOT to buy stablecoins. I used some sharp words that were criticized by netizens at the time. I suggest everyone read it, it is definitely worth reading.
To put it bluntly, most businesses actually end up paying wages in currencies such as US dollars, euros, and pounds. You evaluate the manpower, time, and budget, and then come up with a proposal to pay with DOT. At this time, if DOT rises, the proposer will make money, but the treasury will pay more; if DOT falls, you don’t have the money to complete the project, so you apply for a subsidy proposal, which becomes a vicious circle. And usually these DOTs or KSMs will eventually be sold. If the proposal amount is large and the proposer does not know how to operate the market, it may crash the market, which is not what we want to see.
Therefore, it is better to have stable currency from the beginning, because the reality is that most people will eventually use legal currency to pay rent and wages.
Who is the real culprit behind the DOT selling pressure?
Jay: Oh, so what do you think about the proposal of “regular investment in Bitcoin”?
Leemo: I was actually quite supportive of this idea. I remember it was Phunky who posted the “wish for change” and we talked about it in a Chaos DAO Friday night drunken video conference. I said to him, “You need to be more specific, like which Bitcoin derivative to use.”
The current situation is that because of Hydration, people tend to use tBTC. After all, WBTC has centralization risks, and IBTC's treasury liquidity is not very ideal. I personally think this is a good thing, and it is reasonable for the treasury to buy other assets as a hedge. However, you will always encounter some people who oppose it. They will say: "The price of DOT is so low now, buy Bitcoin? Are you crazy!" Especially now that Bitcoin is at a high level, many people do think that the timing is not right.
I agree that now may not be the best time. The best time would have been to buy a few years ago. But you can buy slowly, in batches, and regular investment is still quite reasonable.
Like Hydration DAO, they bought a lot of BTC, ETH, SUI, LINK, SKY, etc. These are protocol layer assets and are used for transactions, but in essence they are also a kind of diversified management of asset portfolios.
I think this is a very meaningful thing for a DAO. But you can foresee that the comments under that proposal will definitely be: "Why is the Treasury doing this now? You are destroying the DOT plate!" We can talk about this topic.
Jay: Do you think the treasury’s sell-off will really cause DOT to fall?
Leemo：No. The Treasury does sell some DOT, but the amount sold is nothing compared to other situations. Some big investors I know sell much more DOT than the Treasury, so the price change is far more than just the Treasury selling.
Furthermore, the treasury sells DOT in exchange for services or product development, which is beneficial to the ecosystem.
Another major source of selling pressure is staking rewards. You can look at some on-chain data analysis tools, such as the dashboard on Dune Analytics, to see who the wallets that received staking rewards are, and then see if they are constantly selling. I dare say that this part of the selling pressure is much greater than the treasury. And I am a very active OpenGov voter. My point of view is: since we have to spend money, we should spend it on things that can really bring value to the ecosystem. For example, NovaWallet, it is really doing well. I don’t think anyone will oppose giving them funding. The vast majority of people agree that this is beneficial to the ecosystem.
The same goes for other good projects. Of course, there are some proposals that are really garbage and we actually spent money on them - in those cases I would not vote for them, I would vote against them.
Therefore, the sale of DOT by the treasury actually has almost no impact on the market.
Who says Leemo only opposes? He immediately nods in support of such proposals!
Jay: You have actually revealed some of the characteristics of the proposals that you think are "awful". Are there any proposals that you feel brightened up when they come out, and you think to yourself "I can vote for this"? Although you are usually a "heavy opponent", what kind of proposals can make you nod your head? What are the characteristics of such high-quality proposals?
Leemo: A team with a track record of delivery. The proposal team had previously received a not-too-outrageous amount of funding and actually delivered a high-quality product.
Jay: So it’s “having a reputation for delivery.”
Leemo: Yes, reputation for delivery is important.
Another thing is: don't ask for a huge amount of money right away. For example, if you want to do a project, do you want $500,000 right away? You can break it down into several stages and make milestone payments. I like this very much. For example, I like the RFP.fund platform because it allows you to set clear milestones.
I think the Treasury should use this approach more often. However, we do need someone to carefully review the milestones of each stage. Sometimes we approve the proposal for the first stage, but the second, third, and fourth stages do not clearly indicate their respective costs. I think all costs must be clearly stated at the beginning, otherwise the first milestone may cost $20,000, and the fifth milestone suddenly costs $3 million, and then they say: "If you don't pay this $3 million, all the previous costs will be wasted."
This becomes a "sunk cost trap", which I don't like. So I think it is very important for the proposer to be transparent about the costs and every stage.
Jay: Indeed, starting small and slowly building word of mouth is really the key. We all like to see someone come with "sincerity" at the beginning.
Leemo: Yes, it is important to be sincere. For example, there is a case that I really admire - Duda from Paris Board. He often submits small proposals with small amounts of money, and he can really deliver. Many teams are using what he does. You can even set up "cancellable installments". Although we haven't actually canceled any payment, it is actually technically very easy to cancel. I also have a YouTube video to teach you how to use this function haha.
Jay: Let me try to summarize the current situation of the ecosystem. Can you help me see if what I said is correct? We have some organizations that were once very influential, such as the Web3 Foundation, but now their voices are a little smaller and they are looking for new directions. There are also some new attempts on Kusama. Parity is also reorganizing its structure to focus on delivering several key products. Gavin himself is developing the JAM Protocol. Fellowship is also an important role. Then we have a lot of decentralized groups, such as Chaos DAO, which is doing a lot of things. There are also individuals like you who, although not representing any organization, are also actively promoting the development of the entire ecosystem.
DAO investment, PoP identity, lending market, developer experience: 8 priority directions for ecosystem construction
If you were given a "magic wand", how would you like the ecosystem to develop in the future? And what areas can others "pick up a shovel and start working on"?
Leemo: This question is difficult to answer, because when I see a problem, I usually go in and fix it myself. For example, the liquidity problem is a big pitfall, and the treasury can actually participate in providing liquidity. We have recently made several proposals related to Snowbridge. For example, a friend of mine wanted to transfer stablecoins across chains through Snowbridge, because this is the main feature on the website, but it turned out that it couldn't be used at all, because there was no liquidity on the chain, and the user experience was very poor.
Many people criticize Polkadot for not having much to do, but in fact, at a recent event held by Webzero, we showed products such as Nova and Hydration to newcomers, and everyone was surprised and said, "Wow, this is so cool, it turns out that all these are on Polkadot?" I also asked a lot of people a question: You think Solana is great, so what are you doing on Solana? The answer you usually hear is: a decentralized exchange, and then various meme coin generators, in order to make quick money, but that model is not very healthy for the long-term development of the ecosystem.
We need more reasons for people to feel that "this ecosystem is worth it." In my opinion, the real key behind this is liquidity and users. Everyone hopes to have a place to make money, such as "I can do more Sol", so I am willing to stay.
Jay: I think you’re absolutely right. At the same time, I’ve been obsessed with playing FIFA Rivals lately, and I’m busy building a dream team - and all of this is actually happening on Polkadot.
Leemo: A lot of people are playing FIFA Rivals right now, and I heard that this game is really good.
Jay: I don’t want to brag, but I also got access to Pudgy Penguins and I’m now collecting all kinds of Pudgy costumes like crazy, which is really fun. The whole experience is very interesting and very fairy-tale-like. But you know, all of this is actually achieved on Polkadot.
Leemo: Indeed, there are many people quietly fixing the problems in the ecosystem. For example, the DeFi bounty program is doing very well, mainly led by people like Velocity and Nico. They solved the problems that many people complained about, such as the integration of USDT and USDC on Asset Hub, especially the use of them on CEX. They also spent a lot of energy focusing on markets such as Latin America, Turkey, and Asia. I think the work of the Velocity team is often underestimated. In the final analysis, they have the ability to take action. They found the problem, proposed the bounty proposal, and they have the connections and ability to get these things done, and they can also get paid. The key is that this really improves the ecosystem.
Jay: Indeed, you are right. Liquidity is really critical. In fact, there are already many things happening on Polkadot. Once the market has enough liquidity and users can bet on these projects, the entire ecosystem may become active all of a sudden.
Leemo: Yes, for example, it would be great to have a DEX with perpetual contracts. Everyone likes to play long, short, and with a little leverage. Of course, I have to remind everyone: don't use leveraged trading, or you will get liquidated. But I have to say that many people do like this kind of play.
But one of the reasons why Solana is so popular right now is their pump fun. It is basically an extreme "value extraction" platform. For example, someone says something on Twitter, and then a bot immediately sends a meme coin based on this sentence. Then it's a gamble - "Can I sell it before others?" To be honest, if this is our goal, then I don't think it's interesting, it feels a bit boring, and it's quite embarrassing. Let's not do this, we should do something really cool.
For example, I really like Hydration's lending market. For example, if you need money in an emergency, you don't have to sell your DOT. You can directly use it as collateral for a loan. When the money arrives, you can repay the loan and get your DOT back. I think this function is also very practical in real life.
For example, Musk can pledge his Tesla stock to the bank for cash, which is a common way for the rich to avoid taxes. But ordinary people can't do that. If you have $10,000 worth of Amazon stock and you go to the bank and ask, "Can I get $5,000?" they won't pay attention to you. But in the crypto field, you can do this, which I think is so cool, so we should prioritize the development of things that are really useful.
For example, Personhood is a very interesting direction. It can solve the problem of Sybil attacks without revealing your identity. You only need to prove that "you are a real person" instead of "who you are". I like this design very much and look forward to its launch.
Jay: I think the future is bright. Especially in a bear market, when speculators are washed out, Polkadot really has a chance to shine, and it could be crazy.
Leemo: I think so too. I particularly like the WebZero team, such as Sasha, who does some of the things they do, such as organizing hackathons and promoting developer relations (DevRel). I think we really need these efforts. For example, development documentation is still a shortcoming, and we need to systematically improve Polkadot's development documentation. Because many times, developers will only be interested in these projects when they attend offline events and see them in person. But if they don't attend the events, it's difficult for them to get started. Therefore, it is very important to improve the developer experience, and I think the PDP (Parachain Deployment Portal) made by the Parity team is very good, making it possible to deploy parallel chains with one click.
There are also some "guerrilla" teams working on things like PoP (Proof of Personhood) - in short, making "developing here" easier is a super awesome thing. Another example is that Asset Hub or Polkadot Hub finally supports smart contracts, which is also cool. Although Moonbeam used to support smart contracts, many people thought that "Polkadot does not support smart contracts." Now if the mainnet also supports it, the threshold for getting started will be much lower. And you can also call between multiple chains through XCM, which enriches the gameplay.
Leemo's three most anticipated Polkadot events: contracts, identity, and governance changes
Jay: There are so many things going on. Let's summarize. What are the three things that you are most excited about in Polkadot? You can start with the third one and think about it slowly.
Leemo: The third place is a double-edged sword - the perpetual contract trading platform on HOLLAR and Hydration.
Jay: Very good, beautiful! What about the second place?
Leemo: Probably Personhood. We just talked about it and I really think it’s very interesting.
Jay: I agree. This is why we have been holding offline gatherings in Toronto. We want to get in early and bring more people in.
Leemo: Yes, everyone should hold more meetups. I remember that in the interview between Gavin and you, you also talked about the vision related to DIM (Decentralized Identity Module). Of course, I personally did not participate in the DIM project, and the following is purely my personal speculation - you go to a meetup, use a certain application, and it can show "this person is a real user and has been verified by a certain group", how cool is that. So, Personhood, and things related to DIMs, I am very optimistic.
Jay: So what is the first thing Leemo is most looking forward to about Polkadot?
Leemo: Well, it’s another “double combo”. One is the migration of governance and staking to Asset Hub, and the other is that there may be some changes in OpenGov - I heard that some people are discussing this privately.
Jay: Yes, the next stage of OpenGov may be very exciting. I am both worried and excited about it, but I am optimistic overall.
Leemo: Yeah, I just hope that if there is some centralization trend, at least the right people will be in the right positions. For example, some people have proposed that maybe in the future we will return to the "parliamentary system", or the bounty mechanism, where the project is controlled and executed by a group of curators. This is actually pretty cool, as long as the right people are involved. You definitely don't want to see the entire "parliament" composed of people from the same company, or a group of good friends, right? Imagine if all ChaosDao people were in charge, someone would definitely be dissatisfied. So the problem is not about which group of people, but about avoiding monopoly by any one party.
Jay: Yes, the key is not only to put the right people in the right positions, but also to have a correct mechanism to select these people. Because you know, as long as someone stays in a certain position for a long time, it is easy to corrupt. But I believe Gavin will not watch the experiment he created rot.
Leemo: I am also looking forward to how personal identity verification can play a role in governance. There should be some very interesting uses. I also hope that platforms such as Polkassembly and Subsquare can introduce a "identity verification" requirement, such as ticking a box before posting a comment to indicate "I am a real person". Because now many people say that they speak with a small account worth $300, but I really think that some particularly negative or rhythmic comments are actually small accounts of people in the circle. They dare not express their opinions with real-name accounts, so they use small accounts to make sarcastic remarks.
Jay: Yes, I totally understand. I hope these mechanisms can really improve the quality of discussion.
Leemo: Yes. But in fact, you don’t need to “real name” who this person is. You just need to prove that “this is a real person”. Sometimes when I read the comments under the posts of Polkassembly or Subsquare, it really feels like one person has opened three small accounts, commenting and echoing each other. Sometimes they say the same thing, and sometimes they say opposite things. This is also the case on Twitter. Many anonymous accounts are actually people in the circle who are leading the pace, saying things that no one really cares about, and spreading negative emotions.
Jay: Yeah, there is a lot of noise. But there is also a lot to do. To be honest, I basically ignore the noise now.
Leemo: Yeah, just ignore the noise. Besides, if there is a problem, solve it, don't sit there and complain all day, just like when you see a puddle on the ground - don't just point and say "there's water here", you have to go and see if the roof is leaking, even if you find a bucket to catch it first, it's better than doing nothing. Even if you can't fix the roof, at least you can prevent water from accumulating again, right?
